Federal judge rules DC ban on gun carry rights unconstitutio

[golddigger14s]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/26/emily-miller-federal-judge-rules-dc-ban-on-gun-carry-rights-unconstitutional/ [<-- MOD EDIT, fixed link]
"A federal judge in the District of Columbia on Saturday overturned the city’s total ban on residents being allowing to carry firearms outside their home in a landmark decision for gun-rights activists.

Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. wrote in his ruling in Palmer v. District of Columbia that the right to bear arms extends outside the home, therefore gun-control laws in the nation’s capital are “unconstitutional.”"

Big win!

This could have far reaching (in a good way) consequences for the rest of the country. No permit carry!

[norahc]

Working link

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07 ... itutional/

[waglocker]

Fugg Yes

[Dave Workman]

This could have far reaching (in a good way) consequences for the rest of the country. No permit carry!

Don't start reading into this something that might not be there. I see nothing in the ruling that says this, but I've only read it twice, and maybe I missed something.


Court ruling on D.C. carry ban could have broad implications

Today’s ruling by the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia that the city’s ban on carrying of handguns outside the home doesn’t stand up to constitutional muster “under any level of scrutiny” could have far-reaching implications.

http://www.examiner.com/article/court-r ... plications

[golddigger14s]

This could have far reaching (in a good way) consequences for the rest of the country. No permit carry!

Don't start reading into this something that might not be there. I see nothing in the ruling that says this, but I've only read it twice, and maybe I missed something.


Court ruling on D.C. carry ban could have broad implications

Today’s ruling by the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia that the city’s ban on carrying of handguns outside the home doesn’t stand up to constitutional muster “under any level of scrutiny” could have far-reaching implications.

http://www.examiner.com/article/court-r ... plications

You maybe right, but for DC to go from NO to YES seems like a major win for us (as a group). Don't crush my tiny little hopeful heart.

[Lew]

Sure nice to hear this...some positive for a change

[norahc]

This could have far reaching (in a good way) consequences for the rest of the country. No permit carry!

Don't start reading into this something that might not be there. I see nothing in the ruling that says this, but I've only read it twice, and maybe I missed something.


Court ruling on D.C. carry ban could have broad implications

Today’s ruling by the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia that the city’s ban on carrying of handguns outside the home doesn’t stand up to constitutional muster “under any level of scrutiny” could have far-reaching implications.

http://www.examiner.com/article/court-r ... plications

You maybe right, but for DC to go from NO to YES seems like a major win for us (as a group). Don't crush my tiny little hopeful heart.

We all know they are going to spend tax dollars to fight this, so it is far from over.

[deadshot2]

This could have far reaching (in a good way) consequences for the rest of the country. No permit carry!

Don't start reading into this something that might not be there. I see nothing in the ruling that says this, but I've only read it twice, and maybe I missed something.


Court ruling on D.C. carry ban could have broad implications

Today’s ruling by the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia that the city’s ban on carrying of handguns outside the home doesn’t stand up to constitutional muster “under any level of scrutiny” could have far-reaching implications.

http://www.examiner.com/article/court-r ... plications

Actually, the way I read the ruling, it does nothing to the requirements for permits, background checks, etc. It merely said that there can be no "blanket" prohibition against issuance of a permit to carry outside the home or issuance of permits to "non-residences" of the "District".

FWIW, I don't see anything in my reading of the decision that would even prevent any prohibition on "Open Carry".

[root]

As of Today, the D.C. Chief of Police has issued a statement to D.C. police officers:

Not to arrest those legally carrying firearms in the D.C. area. It is now officially a Constitutional Carry area, as long as you legally can carry in your home state. No provisions against long guns, no provisions against anything other than .50BMG, MGs, and magazines over 10 rounds.

The only restriction is that if you DO live in D.C., you can only carry REGISTERED pistols. Be it CC or OC.

Link to the "DCMPD suspension of enforcement" recording: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3wh187 ... tVZTg/edit

[deadshot2]

As of Today, the D.C. Chief of Police has issued a statement to D.C. police officers:

Not to arrest those legally carrying firearms in the D.C. area. It is now officially a Constitutional Carry area, as long as you legally can carry in your home state. No provisions against long guns, no provisions against anything other than .50BMG, MGs, and magazines over 10 rounds.

The only restriction is that if you DO live in D.C., you can only carry REGISTERED pistols. Be it CC or OC.

Link to the "DCMPD suspension of enforcement" recording: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3wh187 ... tVZTg/edit

Wait until this is challenged in court. If you live anywhere ELSE but DC, you can carry just about anything but if your home address is in the district it has to be only a registered firearm? Yeah, right. Can't wait to see what happens after the first resident (non felon) is arrested for carrying a non-registered firearm. Constitutional Carry should be "Constitutional for all".

They need to stop "stepping on their dicks" in cities like this. What do they think they are, Chicago?