• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

D.C. officials didn't learn gun lesson yet.

L

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,587
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Appeals court blocks DC's concealed-carry law on Second Amendment grounds | Fox News

D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed carry permit.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the regulation as too restrictive in a 2-1 decision, The Washington Post reported.

“The good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on most D.C. residents’ right to carry a gun in the face of ordinary self-defense needs,” Judge Thomas B. Griffith wrote, according to the paper.

Here is a good reason to have a concealed permit I want one and have a right to have it.

Of course like dentists there is always that one doctor.

The lone dissenter, Judge Karen Henderson, said the district’s regulation “passes muster” because of the city’s unique security challenges as the nation’s capital and because it does not affect the right to keep a firearm at home.

What does this judge not get? Ol yea the constitution.

A gun does me no good at home when I am mugged on the street.
 
ludin said:
Appeals court blocks DC's concealed-carry law on Second Amendment grounds | Fox News

D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed carry permit.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the regulation as too restrictive in a 2-1 decision, The Washington Post reported.

“The good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on most D.C. residents’ right to carry a gun in the face of ordinary self-defense needs,” Judge Thomas B. Griffith wrote, according to the paper.

Here is a good reason to have a concealed permit I want one and have a right to have it.

Of course like dentists there is always that one doctor.

The lone dissenter, Judge Karen Henderson, said the district’s regulation “passes muster” because of the city’s unique security challenges as the nation’s capital and because it does not affect the right to keep a firearm at home.

What does this judge not get? Ol yea the constitution.

A gun does me no good at home when I am mugged on the street.
Click to expand...

the politicians who passed that nonsense ought to be amenable to suit for violations of civil rights under 42 USC 1983. Lets start making it painful to be a moron in office and violating clear constitutional rights
 
ludin said:
Appeals court blocks DC's concealed-carry law on Second Amendment grounds | Fox News

D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed carry permit.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the regulation as too restrictive in a 2-1 decision, The Washington Post reported.

“The good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on most D.C. residents’ right to carry a gun in the face of ordinary self-defense needs,” Judge Thomas B. Griffith wrote, according to the paper.

Here is a good reason to have a concealed permit I want one and have a right to have it.

Of course like dentists there is always that one doctor.

The lone dissenter, Judge Karen Henderson, said the district’s regulation “passes muster” because of the city’s unique security challenges as the nation’s capital and because it does not affect the right to keep a firearm at home.

What does this judge not get? Ol yea the constitution.

A gun does me no good at home when I am mugged on the street.
Click to expand...

cannot blame the Dems for that Judge-this anti gun judge was a GOP appointee. I wonder if she went "Souter" after being elevated?
 
ludin said:
Appeals court blocks DC's concealed-carry law on Second Amendment grounds | Fox News

D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed carry permit.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the regulation as too restrictive in a 2-1 decision, The Washington Post reported.

“The good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on most D.C. residents’ right to carry a gun in the face of ordinary self-defense needs,” Judge Thomas B. Griffith wrote, according to the paper.

Here is a good reason to have a concealed permit I want one and have a right to have it.

Of course like dentists there is always that one doctor.

The lone dissenter, Judge Karen Henderson, said the district’s regulation “passes muster” because of the city’s unique security challenges as the nation’s capital and because it does not affect the right to keep a firearm at home.

What does this judge not get? Ol yea the constitution.

A gun does me no good at home when I am mugged on the street.
Click to expand...

The idea of one having to supply a "good reason" deemed acceptable to the state in advance to exercise an individual constitutional right is insane. If that is not prior restraint then what is? Essentially this nonsense law turns the free exercise of one's 2A constitutional rights into a (felony?) crime unless they first secure state permission and pay the demanded rent to receive permission to do so.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/dc.pdf
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
cannot blame the Dems for that Judge-this anti gun judge was a GOP appointee. I wonder if she went "Souter" after being elevated?
Click to expand...

I didn't blame anyone but I question that judges sanity and her ability to follow the constitution.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The idea of one having to supply a "good reason" deemed acceptable to the state in advance to exercise an individual constitutional right is insane. If that is not prior restraint then what is? Essentially this nonsense law turns the free exercise of one's 2A rights into a crime unless they first secure state permission and pay the demanded rent to do so.
Click to expand...

Yea I am not sure how that would work. That is a dangerous concept.
That could be applied to anything.

What these guys do not understand is that the bill of rights is restriction on government not the people.
 
ludin said:
Yea I am not sure how that would work. That is a dangerous concept.
That could be applied to anything.

What these guys do not understand is that the bill of rights is restriction on government not the people.
Click to expand...

Note that open carry of a handgun is 100% illegal in DC even with a carry permit - what good is a handgun that must be kept concealed at all times to remain legal? Like many such moronic laws, it can only be challenged if one has "standing" - basically, you must break the law (and suffer the consequences) in order to challenge it.
 
ludin said:
I didn't blame anyone but I question that judges sanity and her ability to follow the constitution.
Click to expand...

I agree, I was merely being objective and even handed since I often note most anti gun judges are Democrat appointees In this case this lady judge was a Reagan/Bush appointee. just like Souter was a Bush appointee
 
ludin said:
Appeals court blocks DC's concealed-carry law on Second Amendment grounds | Fox News

D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed carry permit.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the regulation as too restrictive in a 2-1 decision, The Washington Post reported.

“The good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on most D.C. residents’ right to carry a gun in the face of ordinary self-defense needs,” Judge Thomas B. Griffith wrote, according to the paper.

Here is a good reason to have a concealed permit I want one and have a right to have it.

Of course like dentists there is always that one doctor.

The lone dissenter, Judge Karen Henderson, said the district’s regulation “passes muster” because of the city’s unique security challenges as the nation’s capital and because it does not affect the right to keep a firearm at home.

What does this judge not get? Ol yea the constitution.

A gun does me no good at home when I am mugged on the street.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with the case. Is this a parallel to Peruta?
 
Lutherf said:
I'm not familiar with the case. Is this a parallel to Peruta?
Click to expand...

evidently the city council was a little but hurt from the last SCOTUS that went against them.
so they decided to pass something else that would try and ban hand guns from people to carry them.

only the appeals court ruled against them yet again.
these liberal in DC simply do not understand our constitution.
 
ludin said:
evidently the city council was a little but hurt from the last SCOTUS that went against them.
so they decided to pass something else that would try and ban hand guns from people to carry them.

only the appeals court ruled against them yet again.
these liberal in DC simply do not understand our constitution.
Click to expand...

time to allow those whose rights were delayed or denied to file "Bivens" or 42 USC 1983 civil rights suits against city clowncil and make the assholes personally liable. I figure a thousand dollars a week that your right was delayed. put of few of those politicians in Chapter 7 (and not allow them to avoid the judgment) would be a good start
 
TurtleDude said:
time to allow those whose rights were delayed or denied to file "Bivens" or 42 USC 1983 civil rights suits against city clowncil and make the assholes personally liable. I figure a thousand dollars a week that your right was delayed. put of few of those politicians in Chapter 7 (and not allow them to avoid the judgment) would be a good start
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good idea. I love the fact I live in a gun friendly state.
 
ludin said:
Sounds like a good idea. I love the fact I live in a gun friendly state.
Click to expand...

I am hoping we get a whole herd of judges who start seeing these politicians as violators of our civil rights and punishing them for that
 
TurtleDude said:
I am hoping we get a whole herd of judges who start seeing these politicians as violators of our civil rights and punishing them for that
Click to expand...

Will never happen they golf with them in the weekend.
 
ludin said:
Will never happen they golf with them in the weekend.
Click to expand...

that's why we need to get outsiders on the court. not pigs from the same sty
 
TurtleDude said:
that's why we need to get outsiders on the court. not pigs from the same sty
Click to expand...

It is all a stinking sty. The judges and the politicians all went to school together.
As a judge works their way up the system how do you think they get appointed to federal and appeal courts?
 
ludin said:
It is all a stinking sty. The judges and the politicians all went to school together.
As a judge works their way up the system how do you think they get appointed to federal and appeal courts?
Click to expand...
Yea pretty basically you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.
 
TurtleDude said:
the politicians who passed that nonsense ought to be amenable to suit for violations of civil rights under 42 USC 1983. Lets start making it painful to be a moron in office and violating clear constitutional rights
Click to expand...

What about the clear constitutional rights of alleged criminals to a fair trial instead of being gunned down by heartless gun owners who want to strut around like JOHN WAYNE HUH?

What about the clear constitutional rights of the general public's general welfare? How can you ensure the general welfare of the people if there are untrained trigger happy civilians strutting around just itching for a chance to play at hero?

What about the right to life and liberty and happiness for those caught in the crossfire of gun owners shooting at every imagined criminal ? UH HUH MR LAYER WHAT ABOUT THEM???


(Thus ends my impression of a banneroid, how'd I do?)
 
ludin said:
Sounds like a good idea. I love the fact I live in a gun friendly state.
Click to expand...

I hate that I live in "May Issue" Maryland where my 2A rights stop at my front door. Our "good and substantial" requirement was also deemed unconstitutional, but the liberals here could never let that stand and the SCOTUS refused to hear the case, failing us entirely.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
I hate that I live in "May Issue" Maryland where my 2A rights stop at my front door. Our "good and substantial" requirement was also deemed unconstitutional, but the liberals here could never let that stand and the SCOTUS refused to hear the case, failing us entirely.
Click to expand...

someone just needs to refile. the problem is that these things cost money. more so in the light of the 2nd appeals court ruling.
 
ludin said:
Appeals court blocks DC's concealed-carry law on Second Amendment grounds | Fox News

D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed carry permit.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the regulation as too restrictive in a 2-1 decision, The Washington Post reported.

“The good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on most D.C. residents’ right to carry a gun in the face of ordinary self-defense needs,” Judge Thomas B. Griffith wrote, according to the paper.

Here is a good reason to have a concealed permit I want one and have a right to have it.

Of course like dentists there is always that one doctor.

The lone dissenter, Judge Karen Henderson, said the district’s regulation “passes muster” because of the city’s unique security challenges as the nation’s capital and because it does not affect the right to keep a firearm at home.

What does this judge not get? Ol yea the constitution.

A gun does me no good at home when I am mugged on the street.
Click to expand...

Wait. Are you saying the 2nd Amendment doesn't say:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms at home, shall not be infringed.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Wait. Are you saying the 2nd Amendment doesn't say:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms at home, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

could you be more clear?
 
Renae said:
What about the clear constitutional rights of alleged criminals to a fair trial instead of being gunned down by heartless gun owners who want to strut around like JOHN WAYNE HUH?

What about the clear constitutional rights of the general public's general welfare? How can you ensure the general welfare of the people if there are untrained trigger happy civilians strutting around just itching for a chance to play at hero?

What about the right to life and liberty and happiness for those caught in the crossfire of gun owners shooting at every imagined criminal ? UH HUH MR LAYER WHAT ABOUT THEM???


(Thus ends my impression of a banneroid, how'd I do?)
Click to expand...

not bad-some comment about penis surrogates or racism would help it be a bit more effective though :mrgreen:
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Wait. Are you saying the 2nd Amendment doesn't say:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms at home, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

We restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms in many ways currently
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom