DC Handgun Carry Ban Overturned!

[Mr.Stu 1,921]

Upon reading the details looks like only pistols are now allowed.... Like this Pistol...

Make sure you only use a 10 round mag though.

 

Sent from my SCH-I800 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[ALAN553 27]

So a non resident CCW from NH or FL works in DC?

[springfieldxds 0]

So a non resident CCW from NH or FL works in DC?

as of right now you dont need any license to carry in DC, you just need to be able to legally own a firearm 

ianal 

[Michael2013 56]

I thought that D.C. would be the last place on earth this would happen.

Yes, but this it what happens when they push too far.

[Newtonian 453]

Yes, but this it what happens when they push too far.

 

There are lots of places like that. Heller already made D.C. similar to (but not exactly like) NJ and NYC. I'd like to see them get rid of the registration nonsense for residents.

 

Anyone want to bet on the impact this will have on crime in D.C.? I don't think it will have much either way. The people in DC who commit gun crimes live and operate pretty much in their own world.

[mipafox 438]

I think we should ALL do that. We should also have a qualification party at a local range. 

 

i am with you. Who else is with me? 

Where were you last time?

[mipafox 438]

Nope NJ will be the last place this will happen, possibly Maryland.

Maryland will be last. NJ will be never.

 

I have two relatives in DC and I am tempted to visit. Unfortunately, the law does not say I can, the case law does not say I can as far as I can tell, and the Chief of Police does not write the law. And his word does not protect my ass. Further, a stay can occur at any time, and he can change his mind retroactively. Because his policy is not binding law.

 

If by the end of this week this nonsense has stabilized I might indeed go down to visit some relatives. It would be great to exercise my rights guarantied and protected from the Federal Government under The Second Amendment in Washington DC.

[HBecwithFn7 296]

I have two relatives in DC and I am tempted to visit. Unfortunately, the law does not say I can, the case law does not say I can as far as I can tell, and the Chief of Police does not write the law. And his word does not protect my ass. Further, a stay can occur at any time, and he can change his mind retroactively. Because his policy is not binding law.

She/her..... (Cathy Lanier, DC Chief of Police)

 

I remain cautiously optimistic... we'll see what happens. I do agree that there needs to be a little time for things to stabilize.

[Tack Tickle 0]

According to Emily Miller it is NOT consitutional carry and you MUST have a concealed carry permit from your home state.

 

"Anyone who is a non D.C. resident who legally can carry in their home state, whether open or concealed, can carry in D.C.," Miller said.

 

There is nothing about non resident permits. It is constitutional carry for residents and non-residents alike. if you aren't a prohibited person, you can carry. Full. Stop.

 

DC residents can only carry legally registered guns. But everyone else can carry their legal guns from out of state. 

 

This is what would have happened in Illinois if the legislature did not make the deadline to pass the FCCA. 

[Midwest 28]

Whatever happens, y'all welcome to visit and open carry anytime here in the Bluegrass. Y'all aint done need no permit in these parts.

[springfieldxds 0]

According to Emily Miller it is NOT consitutional carry and you MUST have a concealed carry permit from your home state.

 

"Anyone who is a non D.C. resident who legally can carry in their home state, whether open or concealed, can carry in D.C.," Miller said.

i dont believe thats right, Lanier specifically said to not to enforce the prohibition on carrying law, the law and the ruling makes no mention of needing a permit to carry, Lanier just said that if youre not prohibited from owning a gun you can carry it, unless youre a resident of DC, then your gun must be registered to carry it 

 

her update to the police also does not mention that police must check a non residents license, just to check if they have any criminal record or a warrant out or if theyre a DC resident and if they are to make sure their gun is registered 

[Tack Tickle 0]

The words came right out of her mouth. I did not add those quotations it is her actual quote.

 

 

i dont believe thats right, Lanier specifically said to not to enforce the prohibition on carrying law, the law and the ruling makes no mention of needing a permit to carry, Lanier just said that if youre not prohibited from owning a gun you can carry it, unless youre a resident of DC, then your gun must be registered to carry it 

 

her update to the police also does not mention that police must check a non residents license, just to check if they have any criminal record or a warrant out or if theyre a DC resident and if they are to make sure their gun is registered 

[springfieldxds 0]

The words came right out of her mouth. I did not add those quotations it is her actual quote.

yes i understand but i believe she is wrong, she could just be saying that to protect herself from lawsuits

[mipafox 438]

Checking something...

[mipafox 438]

 

i dont believe thats right, Lanier specifically said to not to enforce the prohibition on carrying law, the law and the ruling makes no mention of needing a permit to carry, Lanier just said that if youre not prohibited from owning a gun you can carry it, unless youre a resident of DC, then your gun must be registered to carry it 

 

her update to the police also does not mention that police must check a non residents license, just to check if they have any criminal record or a warrant out or if theyre a DC resident and if they are to make sure their gun is registered 

 

 

I'm not so sure about that. If you read the memo, they give two cases were a person may carry, and one where they may not.

 

Of the two cases a person may carry, one is a person from DC with a registered firearm, and one is a person from Vermont where they specify no license to carry is needed. She made a point of that. I think Miller may be correct that this is her position. If I were a cop, I would think so, or at least call in about it.

 

The ruling also makes no mention of nullifying the requirement to have firearms and ammunition registered in DC. That is still law. Are your firearms and ammunition registered in DC?

 

No.

 

So, as long as you are in violation of the actual law, and relying on the policy of the CLEO to keep your ass out of prison, I think you might want to do what the CLEO says. I don't think it's 100% clear what the CLEO's intent is at this point with respect to non-resident's authorization to carry in home state. Whatever she says goes if you want to rely on her altruism.

[springfieldxds 0]

well this is all moot anyways, DC is asking for a stay and Gura said he would agree to an immediate 90 day stay, why the he** he would agree to that is beyond me 

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/07/dc-seeks-stay-of-gun-ruling-192993.html

[springfieldxds 0]

   

 

I'm not so sure about that. If you read the memo, they give two cases were a person may carry, and one where they may not.

 

Of the two cases a person may carry, one is a person from DC with a registered firearm, and one is a person from Vermont where they specify no license to carry is needed. She made a point of that. I think Miller may be correct that this is her position. If I were a cop, I would think so, or at least call in about it.

 

The ruling also makes no mention of nullifying the requirement to have firearms and ammunition registered in DC. That is still law. Are your firearms and ammunition registered in DC?

 

No.

 

So, as long as you are in violation of the actual law, and relying on the policy of the CLEO to keep your ass out of prison, I think you might want to do what the CLEO says. I don't think it's 100% clear what the CLEO's intent is at this point with respect to non-resident's authorization to carry in home state. Whatever she says goes if you want to rely on her altruism.

http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/07-137-14.pdf

 

please read this again, especially the part that says " at this time, individuals who do not live in the district shall not be charged with unregistered firearms or unregistered ammunition"

 

the judge specifically said ready to use firearms which mean a loaded firearm

 

also the two cases they give are speculation not what the law actually means  

[mipafox 438]

 

http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/07-137-14.pdf

 

please read this again, especially the part that says " at this time, individuals who do not live in the district shall not be charged with unregistered firearms or unregistered ammunition"

 

the judge specifically said ready to use firearms which mean a loaded firearm

 

also the two cases they give are speculation not what the law actually means  

I read it very clearly. You did not refute a single word of what I said.

 

I said you are relying on the CLEO, not the law, for not having registration of firearms of ammo. Neither the law nor the ruling protect you - just the good graces of the CLEO.

 

Miller said you need a license from your own state to carry. You say that's not the law. You are already in violation of the law, registration. If the CLEO thinks you need a license to carry, or a signed letter from the Tooth Fairy, you need it. She gave one example of an out of stater legally carrying in DC in her memo and made a point of the fact that the person was legal to carry in their home state due to the state's carry laws.

 

I think Miller is on to something. Further, Miller and the CLEO are not the only sources of this, other people have been saying the same thing.

 

It's certainly not clear at this point but everything coming out of DC suggests you need to be legal to carry in your home state.

[springfieldxds 0]

also the first part of the memo says they're not enforcing 22-4504(a) they didn't mention anything about any permits, DC did say that they're still enforcing other parts of the law, including felons in possession just as i said

 

im not forcing anyone to carry or saying they should, all im saying is that if this stands the way it is and a stay is denied and i find myself going to DC, i would be more than comfortable ccing 

 

thats me personal, im not giving legal advice to anyone 

[springfieldxds 0]

http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/07-137-14.pdf

 

please read this again, especially the part that says " at this time, individuals who do not live in the district shall not be charged with unregistered firearms or unregistered ammunition"

 

the judge specifically said ready to use firearms which mean a loaded firearm

 

also the two cases they give are speculation not what the law actually means  

you said this "The ruling also makes no mention of nullifying the requirement to have firearms and ammunition registered in DC. That is still law. Are your firearms and ammunition registered in DC? No"

 

and i said this " at this time, individuals who do not live in the district shall not be charged with unregistered firearms or unregistered ammunition"

 

that is all that needs to be said, only residents need to have their firearm and ammunition registered, non residents do not, that is fact right from Guras mouth

 

furthermore DC police were instructed not to enforce 22-4504(a) which says nothing at all about having a permit from your home state, Lanier cant make laws as she please and there is no law in DC that says you need a resident license to carry 

[mipafox 438]

 

also the first part of the memo says they're not enforcing 22-4504(a) they didn't mention anything about any permits, DC did say that they're still enforcing other parts of the law, including felons in possession just as i said

 

im not forcing anyone to carry or saying they should, all im saying is that if this stands the way it is and a stay is denied and i find myself going to DC, i would be more than comfortable ccing 

 

thats me personal, im not giving legal advice to anyone 

 

 

The memo gives one single example of an out of stater carrying legally in DC. Why have you not quoted it? Here it is:

 

"Scenario 2: The man lives in Vermont, which does not require a license or permit for either open or concealed carry of a handgun. You run his name, and no criminal record is apparent."

[springfieldxds 0]

 

I read it very clearly. You did not refute a single word of what I said.

 

I said you are relying on the CLEO, not the law, for not having registration of firearms of ammo. Neither the law nor the ruling protect you - just the good graces of the CLEO.

 

Miller said you need a license from your own state to carry. You say that's not the law. You are already in violation of the law, registration. If the CLEO thinks you need a license to carry, or a signed letter from the Tooth Fairy, you need it. She gave one example of an out of stater legally carrying in DC in her memo and made a point of the fact that the person was legal to carry in their home state due to the state's carry laws.

 

I think Miller is on to something. Further, Miller and the CLEO are not the only sources of this, other people have been saying the same thing.

 

It's certainly not clear at this point but everything coming out of DC suggests you need to be legal to carry in your home state.

it does not matter what the cleo thinks you need at all......   all that matters is what 22-4504(a) says and it says nothing about having a license from your home state, lanier can give a memo of someone coming from Australia with a license to own a fully automatic machine gun and being allowed to carry that in DC, it makes no difference or changes to the law

 

plus a non resident cannot register their firearm or ammunition in DC, if they passed a law for that then yes they can enforce it but they cant enforce a law that is not there including registration for non residents which doesnt exist

[mipafox 438]

 

you said this "The ruling also makes no mention of nullifying the requirement to have firearms and ammunition registered in DC. That is still law. Are your firearms and ammunition registered in DC? No"

 

and i said this " at this time, individuals who do not live in the district shall not be charged with unregistered firearms or unregistered ammunition"

 

that is all that needs to be said, only residents need to have their firearm and ammunition registered, non residents do not, that is fact right from Guras mouth

 

furthermore DC police were instructed not to enforce 22-4504(a) which says nothing at all about having a permit from your home state, Lanier cant make laws as she please and there is no law in DC that says you need a resident license to carry 

 

 

That's not the "ruling," that's the police memo. How hard is this?

 

You are breaking DC law by having unregistered guns and ammo. You are using a police memo to protect you from the law about having unregistered guns and ammo - not any law, not any court ruling. If you believe the police memo will protect you, then you better do what the police think is right. If she thinks you need to be licensed in your home state, don't tell me, "that is not the law." You are already breaking the law and relying on her graciousness. It's very simple.

[springfieldxds 0]

  

 

The memo gives one single example of an out of stater carrying legally in DC. Why have you not quoted it? Here it is:

 

"Scenario 2: The man lives in Vermont, which does not require a license or permit for either open or concealed carry of a handgun. You run his name, and no criminal record is apparent."

again just a scenario, not law, lanier can give any scenario she pleases, it does not change 22-4504(a), all police were told to not enforce 22-4504(a)

 

there is no law what so ever that says you need a resident license or you need to be from a state that doesn't issue a license to carry in DC, if laniar came out tomorrow and flat out said that in those words then she would be making up law which wouldnt stick in court, thats not even mentioning there would be no law for people to be prosecuted under because law 22-4504(a) is gone, if you carry without a home license there is no law they can prosecute you under even if they wanted to, not unless they change the laws 

 

if its not law its legal.

[springfieldxds 0]

   

 

That's not the "ruling," that's the police memo. How hard is this?

 

You are breaking DC law by having unregistered guns and ammo. You are using a police memo to protect you from the law about having unregistered guns and ammo - not any law, not any court ruling. If you believe the police memo will protect you, then you better do what the police think is right. If she thinks you need to be licensed in your home state, don't tell me, "that is not the law." You are already breaking the law and relying on her graciousness. It's very simple.

again the law is for residents only, not non residents, a non resident cant register their gun in DC

 

they cant enforce laws that dont exist that is why the memo was out, how is that hard to understand

 

you disagree with me thats fine i couldnt care less, dont carry in DC that is your choice, if im in DC and no stay has been granted ill be more than comfortable carrying that is all im saying 

 

goodbye 

[mipafox 438]

 

again just a scenario, not law, lanier can give any scenario she pleases, it does not change 22-4504(a), all police were told to not enforce 22-4504(a)

 

there is no law what so ever that says you need a resident license or you need to be from a state that doesn't issue a license to carry in DC, if laniar came out tomorrow and flat out said that in those words then she would be making up law which wouldnt stick in court, thats not even mentioning there would be no law for people to be prosecuted under because law 22-4504(a) is gone, if you carry without a home license there is no law they can prosecute you under even if they wanted to, not unless they change the laws 

 

if its not law its legal.

 

 

There is no law whatsoever that says you can be in DC without registering your firearms and ammo. Her memo telling cops not to enforce it has no force of law whatsoever and provides you no protection from that law. You better do what she wants if you expect that consideration.

[springfieldxds 0]

   

 

There is no law whatsoever that says you can be in DC without registering your firearms and ammo. Her memo telling cops not to enforce it has no force of law whatsoever and provides you no protection from that law. You better do what she wants if you expect that consideration.

are you serious, there is no law that says in order for a non resident to carry, their gun must be registered along with their ammo

 

do you know why that is?  because until Saturday carrying was completely illegal in DC, now with the ruiling unless they add a law like above, there is no law to prosecute non residents for unregistered firearms, lanier knows this, that is why the memo came out, do you really think she cares about being nice to non residents carrying

 

she couldnt care less, she just doesnt want to be sued or held in contempt of court that is the sole reason for the memo, not to be nice to you or me lol

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

There was a lengthy discussion of this idea of applying for CCW permits en masse late last year:

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/62769-nj-ccw-question/?hl=%2Bccw+%2Bapplications#entry801246

 

Luso got a bunch of us pumped up about it, suggesting the only way we could demonstrate that NJ is not "may issue," but rather "will not issue,"

is for us to get a bunch of rejections to use as evidence.  Have not seen him around here in awhile.

 

Some people complained that a rejection would tarnish their record and force them to answer "yes" when asked on permit apps if a previous application had ever been denied.  My understanding is that one would only need to write something like:  "The State of New Jersey deemed that I did not have justifiable need for a carry permit."  (Or more defiantly, "The State of New Jersey did not deem my life to be worth defending.")

 

As others have noted, I would not have guessed in my wildest dreams that DC would get CCW before we did!

[galapoola 102]

In regard to enforcing carry, just remember who runs the show in DC, it's not some judge, it's the damn 5-0. I brought a handgun into the district once and left it locked in the car as I wandered around the monuments so yes it can be done. The cops on the beat who have never had to deal with citizens carrying handguns will read the bosses memo and see that your non resident permit is not mentioned in the scenarios. Guess what he/she will do? Who here thinks that they'll defer to the district court ruling because they can't find a scenario for NJ residents? You're boned I'm afraid.

[Midwest 28]

I need to post this question

Has anyone here heard that Obama is in favor of DC becoming a state?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/obama-on-dc-statehood-im-for-it/2014/07/21/86536f3a-110d-11e4-9285-4243a40ddc97_story.html



If DC does become a state, would the recent ruling also transfer over? Or will DC start their firearms laws from scratch (because they would be a new state) and just end up as another state with lack of gun rights?

Maybe the Prez saw this coming down the pike and that is why he said that statement. Maybe that is why there isn't a bigger uproar over this? Because DC will become a state? Just a coincidence that his speech was just a week ago.

 

.

.