Page 1 of 2
Re: D.C. must generally grant gun-carry licenses to law-abiding adults
Posted: Tue May 17, 2016 6:31 pm
by rotor
Never heard of Pink Pistols before but I am glad they won. Their website says "We teach Q****S to shoot" I left out the inflammatory word. I welcome everyone that believes in the 2A.
Re: D.C. must generally grant gun-carry licenses to law-abiding adults
Posted: Tue May 17, 2016 7:24 pm
by C-dub
I'm on my phone and didn't see it, but what was the count? 5-3 or unanimous?
Re: D.C. must generally grant gun-carry licenses to law-abiding adults
Posted: Tue May 17, 2016 8:52 pm
by philip964
Imagine if lots of honest law obeying citizens of Washington DC embrace concealed carry. Then imagine if the crime rate goes into a tail spin.
Never mind the press will still not report it. President Clinton will not change her stance on guns.
Re: D.C. must generally grant gun-carry licenses to law-abiding adults
Posted: Tue May 17, 2016 9:15 pm
by C-dub
C-dub wrote:I'm on my phone and didn't see it, but what was the count? 5-3 or unanimous?
Home now and realize that it was a federal judge and not a SCOTUS ruling.
Re: D.C. must generally grant gun-carry licenses to law-abiding adults
Posted: Tue May 17, 2016 10:02 pm
by Pawpaw
Andy, did you know ELB beat you by about 3 hours?
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=84239
Re: D.C. must generally grant gun-carry licenses to law-abiding adults
Posted: Wed May 18, 2016 3:10 pm
by wheelgun1958
rotor wrote:Never heard of Pink Pistols before but I am glad they won. Their website says "We teach Q****S to shoot" I left out the inflammatory word. I welcome everyone that believes in the 2A.
Why would you if it's their own statement?
Re: D.C. must generally grant gun-carry licenses to law-abiding adults
Posted: Wed May 18, 2016 4:00 pm
by Daddio-on-patio
Any (OK, the vast majority I would assume) judgement for 2A is a good judgement. I would rather the anti's be in the position to appeal than us...
Re: D.C. must generally grant gun-carry licenses to law-abiding adults
Posted: Wed May 18, 2016 4:08 pm
by puma guy
Do they have a chapter in New Jersey?
Re: D.C. must generally grant gun-carry licenses to law-abiding adults
Posted: Wed May 18, 2016 9:21 pm
by MikeyJ
puma guy wrote:Do they have a chapter in New Jersey?
As far as the case goes, the "good cause" specified by the plaintiff was the Second Amendment, not membership in Pink Pistols.
Re: D.C. must generally grant gun-carry licenses to law-abiding adults
Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 7:18 am
by puma guy
MikeyJ wrote:puma guy wrote:Do they have a chapter in New Jersey?
As far as the case goes, the "good cause" specified by the plaintiff was the Second Amendment, not membership in Pink Pistols.
Yes, I was posting in jest. I should have included an emoticon. NJ makes it difficult for anyone to get a CCL regardless of good cause or need OR the Second Amendment. A police chief can decide you don't need a license, since NJ is a "may Issue" state. Maybe the Pink Pistol group can get it done in NJ.
Re: D.C. must generally grant gun-carry licenses to law-abiding adults
Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 10:24 am
by KLB
It will be entertaining to see how DC frustrates the effect of this ruling by imposing other restrictions. That DC will do so is a lead-pipe cinch.
Re: D.C. must generally grant gun-carry licenses to law-abiding adults
Posted: Thu May 19, 2016 12:42 pm
by MikeyJ
puma guy wrote:MikeyJ wrote:puma guy wrote:Do they have a chapter in New Jersey?
As far as the case goes, the "good cause" specified by the plaintiff was the Second Amendment, not membership in Pink Pistols.
Yes, I was posting in jest. I should have included an emoticon. NJ makes it difficult for anyone to get a CCL regardless of good cause or need OR the Second Amendment. A police chief can decide you don't need a license, since NJ is a "may Issue" state. Maybe the Pink Pistol group can get it done in NJ.
When I read through the memo, I thought there was a reference to many group members belonging to a "sexual minority" and, therefore, more likely to be targeted.
NJ would be a good test case, though. Chris Christie claims to want to remove the "good cause" requirement but the democrat controlled legislature won't budge. I don't know if the 3rd Circuit has already ruled on a challenge to the "good cause" requirement, though, or how vigorously the NJ AG would defend the requirement.