Does anyone want to go to D.C. for some OC?

[flyingjunkie]

Something just doesn't smell right, here. I'd be extremely careful about this. There has only been one person who wrote an opinion piece (Emily Miller) who said that DC would essentially be seen as a Constitutional Carry place until an actual licensing procedure is put in place. While many are quoting her piece, I've yet to see any press releases or anything of that nature from DC's police chief or anyone on that side of the badge.

I have all the respect in the world for you guys and what you do. I really hope that your planned trip goes of without a hitch. Please, be careful while venturing into the lion's den. As you've seen in the past, Mark, just because a policy is in place, doesn't mean that all officers are going to follow it.

[knight0334]

I am thinking about heading down to D.C. one day this week (preferably Wednesday or Thursday) to enjoy some of the newfound freedom they just discovered, maybe (definitely) take some pictures, talk to some people, see the sights, etc.

Anyone wanna come with?

You first have to get the possession permit and register your weapon. The courts didn't strike down that provision. ...just the carrying outside of ones home aspect.

[internet troll]

Something just doesn't smell right, here. I'd be extremely careful about this. There has only been one person who wrote an opinion piece (Emily Miller) who said that DC would essentially be seen as a Constitutional Carry place until an actual licensing procedure is put in place. While many are quoting her piece, I've yet to see any press releases or anything of that nature from DC's police chief or anyone on that side of the badge.

Yeah, but it's all over CNN.....errrrr oh wait, it's not.

But hey, big important news going on, apparently Lebron James is going to be wearing the number 23 again. Whew..... glad that's settle, my day can continue now.

THE LATEST

• NEW U.N. wants cease-fire in Gaza
• Fighting forces MH17 team to turn back
• Family's final photo before crash
• NEW Dollar stores joining forces
• NEW Zillow buys Trulia for $3.5 billion
• Pilot has spat with traffic control
• Security clearance holders owe $730M
• NEW Lightning kills 1, hurts 12 on beach
• NEW Plane kills man walking on beach
• NEW Boy, 3, smashes Jeep into house
• NEW 5 things to start your day
• Crane operator falls during climb
• First lady steps up political push
• Cruise ship horrors include rape
• Dwayne Johnson's fanny pack pic
• LeBron to wear No. 23 again
• Patient: Doctor cut off my manhood

[Curmudgeon]

You first have to get the possession permit and register your weapon. The courts didn't strike down that provision. ...just the carrying outside of ones home aspect.

According to Chief Lanier, only residents are required to register their handguns.

[soberbyker]

I agree with you on this.

I am 100 percent in favor of OC. But although our country has seen great progress in our civil liberties (with regards to firearms rights), there is still a very powerful anti-gun minority that is doing everything imaginable to 'keep the old ways".

Being a civil rights activist is important, but it comes at a steep personal price. I cannot afford that price. I have a family to take care of. I cannot afford to go to jail, have my reputation sabotaged, or even worse. That doesn't mean I don't contribute where I can to our cause (donate, vote, etc). And I certainly support the efforts of folks who have the courage to take the personal risks to advance our freedoms, and do a good job at advancing our cause in a responsible and lawful manner. I just hope that the potential risks and price of being the pioneers of our freedoms are known to those who choose the brave path.

Very well written and thought out response and my feelings as well, I've said similar many times. rep sent.

In reading the order I see that the statute prohibiting carry (§ 22-4504) and registration limitations (§ 7-2502.02(a)(4)) has been tolled BUT it does not seem to effect the possession of an unregistered firearm:



Assuming the ruling is not stayed then DC cannot prohibit carry in general but it would seem to me that they could restrict carry to registered firearms only – possession of an unregistered firearm is still prohibited. In addition there is the ammunition possession restrictions of § 7-2506.01 to consider if one’s firearm is not registered.

Furthermore, for those sojourning through MD, consider that the legality of possession is a linchpin as to whether they garner FOPA transport protection (18 USC 926A) in any travel between DC and Pa.

Before anyone non-DC resident goes into the "lion's den", suggest that they seek authoritative counsel as to the issues raised above.

The usual sage advice from tl_3237, rep sent and bounced back, I owe ya.

[scruff]

I can't make Wednesday, but I'm game for Thursday, especially if anyone else from Western PA wants to join in and share expenses. An opportunity like this is too good to pass up!

[darkhunter]

In reading the order I see that the statute prohibiting carry (§ 22-4504) and registration limitations (§ 7-2502.02(a)(4)) has been tolled BUT it does not seem to effect the possession of an unregistered firearm:



Assuming the ruling is not stayed then DC cannot prohibit carry in general but it would seem to me that they could restrict carry to registered firearms only – possession of an unregistered firearm is still prohibited. In addition there is the ammunition possession restrictions of § 7-2506.01 to consider if one’s firearm is not registered.

Furthermore, for those sojourning through MD, consider that the legality of possession is a linchpin as to whether they garner FOPA transport protection (18 USC 926A) in any travel between DC and Pa.

Before anyone non-DC resident goes into the "lion's den", suggest that they seek authoritative counsel as to the issues raised above.

the ammunition law was dropped too

from the ruling Judge Sculin wrote "there is no longer any basis on which this court can conclude that the District of Columbia's total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny.”

he specifically pointed to ready to use handgun, a ready to use handgun is a loaded handgun

also concerning the registration this is from the ruling " Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District."

"Per DC Police Chief Lanier, the only gun arrests allowed now are DC residents with unregistered guns and non-residents who are prohibited under federal laws from possessing firearms. Everyone else is in the clear."

im not 100% sure on this but i also heard the dc police have been notified to ask people carrying guns if theyre a resident, if they are they can check registration status, if theyre not a resident theyre free to go

but of course ianal

[tl_3237]

the ammunition law was dropped too

from the ruling Judge Sculin wrote "there is no longer any basis on which this court can conclude that the District of Columbia's total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny.”

he specifically pointed to ready to use handgun, a ready to use handgun is a loaded handgun

also concerning the registration this is from the ruling " Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District."

"Per DC Police Chief Lanier, the only gun arrests allowed now are DC residents with unregistered guns and non-residents who are prohibited under federal laws from possessing firearms. Everyone else is in the clear."

im not 100% sure on this but i also heard the dc police have been notified to ask people carrying guns if theyre a resident, if they are they can check registration status, if theyre not a resident theyre free to go

but of course ianal

Best to read the actual court ruling: http://alangura.com/wpcontent/upload...CT_OPINION.pdf

In the reading of the ruling I found nothing suggest that the ammunition possession prohibition for people without a certificate of registration for a firearm has been tolled – be they resident or nonresident of DC.

Yes the judge did rule that the total prohibition against carry a firearm outside the home was tolled from enforcement upon notification to the powers that be. Nowhere did I find any indication that the other portion of the DC Code, namely prohibition of possession of an unregistered firearm, was obviated in any way. As such, provided one is carrying a registered firearm, they cannot be charged with violating the DC “carry statute”. I found nothing to prevent a charge of possession of an unregistered firearm carried by either a resident or nonresident.

You are correct that the ruling stated basically that DC could not treat residents and nonresidents different – that is, simply being a nonresident should not enter into the legality calculus of carrying a firearm. I didn’t find anything that would allow DC to treat the nonresidents in a prefatory manner by allowing them to carry unregistered firearms why disallowing the same “privilege” for residents.

As to media reports of statements made by the chief of police, bear in mind that they should not be treated as dispositive as to the implementation of the court orders nor are they binding on prosecutors. I suspect that a stay is imminent. In the interim I see a very heightened legal risk for anyone carrying an unregistered firearm in DC and that once DC’s prosecutorial team recovers from the shock of this ruling, they will find the wiggle room to prosecute on other portions of the DC Code that might apply.

ETA: New info posted on another thread:

[darkhunter]

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

here you go

and i did read the WHOLE ruling

[tl_3237]

Motion for stay of ruling filed yesterday. Seems that the 'winning side' (pro-gun) is amenable to a 90 day immediate stay so I suspect an imminent ruling.


Motion for stay

Excerpt:

Pursuant to LCvR 7(m), the undersigned discussed the subject motion with opposing counsel, who indicated that plaintiffs do not oppose a 90-day stay—starting immediately— “pending the city council enacting remedial legislation that complies with constitutional standards.” Plaintiffs also indicated that they would be filing their further views on the defendants’ motion on or before August 4, 2014.