MAJOR JUDICIAL WIN FOR CONCEALED CARRY HOLDERS IN D.C.
WE WON ANOTHER ONE!!!
In many jurisdictions in order to get a concealed carry permit, you have to show "good cause". In Washington DC for example, you had to show "good cause" but ultimately, the decision was up to some bureaucrat, or sheriff, or police department staffer or investigator. The complaint was that there wasn't any consistency, there was discrimination, and ultimately, the requirement of "good cause" was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If you could prove you carried a lot of cash for business, or there was some other reason for it, you might be able to get a license to carry. But if you lived in a high crime neighborhood and that was your reason for wanting a gun, you were denied. The people living in the high crime neighborhoods felt this was insane and unconstitutional and wrong - so they sued. And they just won!
Today, the US Court of Appeals for the CD Circuit ordered all lower courts to issue permanent injunctions blocking the enforcement of the DC City law stating that you have to have "good cause" or "good reason" in order to carry a concealed weapon.
Prior to 2014 the city had BANNED the carrying of guns in public. In 2014 a federal court overturned that ban. After that, they instituted the "good cause" BS in order to effectively keep the ban, as this allows them to simply say that nobody has good cause. This is, in fact, what has happened in many cities and counties in California, such as San Diego, where they basically will not issue anyone a CCW license on the grounds that they have no "good cause". Same with Sacramento, San Francisco and Los Angeles. You simply cannot get a CCW license in these areas is the general reputation.
The DC court said this: "Although there are some limits on gun possession allowed, the Second Amendment doesn't allow for "bans on carrying in urban areas like DC or bans on carrying absent a special need for self-defense. In fact, the Amendments core at a minimum shield the typically situated citizens ability to carry common firearms generally> The Districts good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most DC residents. That's enough to sink this law under Heller I."
A major finding of the Court in this case is that the right to defend oneself EXTENDS beyond the home. The anti-gunners love to say you can have a gun, you just can't do anything with it outside your home. They want to contain it if they can't take it away from you. But in this case, the judges wrote, "But the fact that the need for self-defense is most pressing in the home doesn't mean that self-defense at home is the only right at the Amendments core. After all, the Amendments "core lawful purpose" is self-defense and the need for that might arise beyond as well as within the home. Moreover, the Amendments text protects the right to "bear" as well as "keep" arms. For both reasons, its more natural to view the Amendments core as including a law-abiding citizens right to carry common firearms for self-defense BEYOND THE HOME." (Emphasis added)
This is major. This opens the door for similar suits to take place in California AND ALL ACROSS THIS NATION using this case as precedent, and this is how it has to be done. Case by case, jurisdiction by jurisdiction because the anti-gunners, despite not having a leg to stand on either in factual evidence or constitutionally, will not give up, will not stop enacting unconstitutional laws.
REMAIN VIGILANT AMERICA!!!