Federal judge grants injunction against DC "good cause" requirement

[voyager9 3,434]

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/news/legal/breaking-washington-d-c-may-issue-handgun-carry-license-law-unconstitutional-rules-federal-court-today/

 

It's not a ruling, but bars DC from requiring Good Cause for CCW. One of the bars for a successful injunction is that the judge thinks the case has merit and is likely to succeed.

 

Has to be encouraging, right?

[Kevin125 4,772]

Well, I guess it means they'll look it over.

[maintenanceguy 510]

This is good but I'd feel better if it was a different judge than the one who made the first ruling.  Right now, it's still just one judge's opinion.  After Piszcatowski was shot down, Peruta is about to be overturned, and SCOTUS denied hearing either, I'm not optimistic about winning in federal court.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

Looks like D.C. just picked the wrong phrase for their law.  "Good cause" has been deemed unconstitutional (at least for now), so

they should gone with "justifiable need," which seems to be just fine.

[Midwest 28]

Washington Times picked up the story

 

 

Federal judge halts D.C.’s ‘good reason’ concealed carry requirement


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/18/dc-good-reason-gun-ownership-requirement-halted-by/#ixzz3abC7Qxu8


"A federal judge on Monday put on hold the District’s requirement that gun owners demonstrate a “good reason” in order to receive a concealed carry permit — saying the licensing scheme deprives citizens of their Second Amendment rights.

U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. granted a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit brought by three gun owners that seeks to overturn the new D.C. firearms law on the grounds that the regulations are so strict that they make it impossible to exercise their right to bear arms."
 

[Howard 538]

The left will fix this inconvenient court decision.  They will just get king 0bamba to write an executive order banning all guns within "X" miles of the White house for national security reasons.  That will not only solve this carry problem but will let them go house to house and business to business confiscating all weapons for national security.  If anyone does not like it they can take it to court and perhaps is 5 to 8 years the executive order might get thrown out  

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

Yes, that does seem to be the pattern of the current administration:  Take executive action as they please and dare their opponents to challenge them.

[Kevin125 4,772]

So where is the "Equal Protection" provided under the 14th Amendment for the citizens of New Jersey?  The lack of access to concealed carry is based ONLY on the fact that we are not a member of the classes of citizen they allow to enjoy that right.  The classes being law enforcement, politicians and politically connected persons.  Not in that group and denied a permit based on lack of justifiable need?  You're being discriminated against. What rational basis would there be to issue a CCW permit to a politician and not to a non-politician of the same law abiding status?  ans: There is none.

 

Jesus H...... I sound like the SAPPA guy.....

 

And where can we get a judge like U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. to review a case in New Jersey?????

[CMJeepster 2,777]

And where can we get a judge like U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. to review a case in New Jersey?????

Fantasy Island?

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

So where is the "Equal Protection" provided under the 14th Amendment for the citizens of New Jersey? 

 

Silly rabbit, the Constitution doesn't apply in New Jersey.  

 

Seriously though, that's the only possible logic to continue denying us concealed carry.

[DeerSlayer 241]

 

And where can we get a judge like U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. to review a case in New Jersey?????

That judge is busy having lunch with Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, & Easter bunny on his unicorn ranch...

 

"NJ is Special" not my quote, came from a certain legislator.

[Midwest 28]

Watch out for candidates and politicians to adopt "NJ Is Special" to easily explain away difficult questions during press conferences and town hall meetings..

 

Voter: "How come we pay high taxes?"

Candidate: "NJ Is Special"

 

Voter: "Why can't I get a carry permit in NJ?"

Candidate: "Because NJ Is Special"

 

Voter: "Why can't I pump my own gas in NJ?"

Candidate: "NJ Is Special in that regard, plus it's for the children"

 

Voter: "Why can't we lower or eliminate tolls?"

Candidate: "NJ Is Special and it has special roads that requires very special tolls."

 

Voter: "Why should we vote for you?"

Candidate: "NJ is Special and I am a Special candidate for NJ"

[bzer1 15]

So where is the "Equal Protection" provided under the 14th Amendment for the citizens of New Jersey?  The lack of access to concealed carry is based ONLY on the fact that we are not a member of the classes of citizen they allow to enjoy that right.  The classes being law enforcement, politicians and politically connected persons.  Not in that group and denied a permit based on lack of justifiable need?  You're being discriminated against. What rational basis would there be to issue a CCW permit to a politician and not to a non-politician of the same law abiding status?  ans: There is none.

 

Jesus H...... I sound like the SAPPA guy.....

 

And where can we get a judge like U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. to review a case in New Jersey?????

Sorry, this constitution you speak of is only for citizens, and illegals, not subjects of the PRNJ.

[jm1827 284]

Sorry, this constitution you speak of is only for citizens, and illegals, not subjects of the PRNJ.

Unfortunate but true!

[ChrisJM981 924]

Keep an eye on it and see where it goes. I'm not up on what needs to transpire before a decision can be used as a reference for making a decision in another case, but I'm sure we can find a plaintiff or two for a lawsuit against NJ, should the decision in DC stand.

[Zeke 5,504]

Watch out for candidates and politicians to adopt "NJ Is Special" to easily explain away difficult questions during press conferences and town hall meetings..

 

Voter: "How come we pay high taxes?"

Candidate: "NJ Is Special"

 

Voter: "Why can't I get a carry permit in NJ?"

Candidate: "Because NJ Is Special"

 

Voter: "Why can't I pump my own gas in NJ?"

Candidate: "NJ Is Special in that regard, plus it's for the children"

 

Voter: "Why can't we lower or eliminate tolls?"

Candidate: "NJ Is Special and it has special roads that requires very special tolls."

 

Voter: "Why should we vote for you?"

Candidate: "NJ is Special and I am a Special candidate for NJ"

Special is the nice way of saying special Olympics competitor.

Jus sayen

[maintenanceguy 510]

NJ's justifiable need is mentioned in the instructions for the DC carry permit application.  It says that DC modeled their new law after similar laws in other states and specifically mentions "justifiable need" in NJ.  It uses this as proof that the law in DC is therefore constitutional.

[diamondd817 826]

Maybe this will be the good cause/JN case that will finally make it SCOTUS. After all, DC was the place that got us Heller.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

NJ's justifiable need is mentioned in the instructions for the DC carry permit application.  It says that DC modeled their new law after similar laws in other states and specifically mentions "justifiable need" in NJ.  It uses this as proof that the law in DC is therefore constitutional.

That sounds like pretty circular reasoning.

[PeteF 1,044]

Keep an eye on it and see where it goes. I'm not up on what needs to transpire before a decision can be used as a reference for making a decision in another case, but I'm sure we can find a plaintiff or two for a lawsuit against NJ, should the decision in DC stand.

I really wouldn't hold my breath.

If a USSC decision (Macdonald - firearms ownership a personal right) can't be enforced in NJ (All firearms illegal except ...) why would a lower court decision mean anything.

[CMJeepster 2,777]

The NY Post thinks it's going to impact NYC:  http://nypost.com/2015/05/20/dc-loss-for-gun-control-puts-new-york-citys-laws-at-risk/

[jm1827 284]

The NY Post thinks it's going to impact NYC:  http://nypost.com/2015/05/20/dc-loss-for-gun-control-puts-new-york-citys-laws-at-risk/

I saw that, I am still cautiously optimistic.

[CMJeepster 2,777]

I found this article pretty good:  http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-von-spakovsky/dcs-relentless-attack-second-amendment-slapped-down-again-federal

 

"In his 23-page opinion, Judge Scullin systematically dismantles all of the arguments advanced by the District, noting that it leaves residents “unable to exercise their fundamental right to bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment.”

 

For example, the District cited the report of a self-serving “Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety,” set up by the city council, that claimed the empirical evidence shows that “‘right-to-carry’ laws were associated with substantially higher rates of aggravated assault, rape, robbery and murder.” But as Scullin pointed out, that evidence is “contradicted by, among other things, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s” own crime statistics."

[owadj01 0]

I found this article pretty good: http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-von-spakovsky/dcs-relentless-attack-second-amendment-slapped-down-again-federal

 

"In his 23-page opinion, Judge Scullin systematically dismantles all of the arguments advanced by the District, noting that it leaves residents “unable to exercise their fundamental right to bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment.”

 

For example, the District cited the report of a self-serving “Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety,” set up by the city council, that claimed the empirical evidence shows that “‘right-to-carry’ laws were associated with substantially higher rates of aggravated assault, rape, robbery and murder.” But as Scullin pointed out, that evidence is “contradicted by, among other things, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s” own crime statistics."

[njJoniGuy 2,131]

I believe we're going to need to insert some well-lubed propulsion rockets into the anuses of bovines because we're only going to get Justifiable Need removed from the requirements here in the Glorious PRNJ when pigs can fly.

[ChrisJM981 924]

DC even allowed for employment carrying large amounts of cash, which we don't have here, and it still got cut down. Cautiously optimistic I shall remain.

[njJoniGuy 2,131]

You're right

Too many brain cells fried over the years.

I meant to reference our non-kosher PORCINE friends

[njpilot 671]

Didn't last too long:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/federal-appeals-court-issues-stay-in-ruling-on-dc-gun-laws/2015/06/14/e2bb69cc-12be-11e5-9518-f9e0a8959f32_story.html

 

"D.C. can require gun applicants to provide a ‘good reason’ for now"

 

I guess the stay by the court of appeals is standard.

[CMJeepster 2,777]

Today is the day. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/appeals-court-weighs-dc-gun-law-that-requires-good-reason-for-carry-permit/2015/11/18/fdee0d7e-8e03-11e5-baf4-bdf37355da0c_story.html

[voyager9 3,434]

Oh oh.

Beyond the merits of the arguments on both sides, the appeals court appears keenly interested in a technical aspect of the case. Unprompted by either party, the court in September asked the lawyers to address the question of whether Scullin was officially authorized to rule on the case.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk