It's Time for the Epstein Story to Be Buried
A New Poll Shows Old Media Resistance, and Nicolle Wallace Decides Which Country...
Is Free Speech Really the Highest Value?
Dan Patrick Was Right — Carrie Prejean Boller Had to Go
The Antisemitism Broken Record
Before Protesting ICE, Learn How Government Works
Republican Congress Looks Like a Democrat Majority on TV News
Immigration Is Shaking Up Political Parties in Britain, Europe and the US
Representing the United States on the World Stage Is a Privilege, Not a...
Older Generations Teach the Lost Art of Romance
Solving the Just About Unsolvable Russo-Ukrainian War
20 Alleged 'Free Money' Gang Members Indicted in Houston on RICO, Murder, and...
'Green New Scam' Over: Trump Eliminates 2009 EPA Rule That Fueled Unpopular EV...
Tim Walz Wants Taxpayers to Give $10M in Forgivable Loans to Riot-Torn Businesses
The SAVE Act Fight Ends When It Lands on Trump's Desk for Signature
Tipsheet

ICYMI: Court Of Appeals Refuses To Rehear DC Gun Control Case

ICYMI: Court Of Appeals Refuses To Rehear DC Gun Control Case

While it may not be the most welcome news in terms of gun rights since the court kept most of the District’s strict gun regulations in place, it did refuse to rehear the case in its entirely in front f the full panel. It also upheld the panel’s original decision that struck down the quote on registering one gun a month (via WaPo):

Advertisement

In denying the city’s request, Judge Patricia A. Millett — who has been mentioned as a potential nominee to replace Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia — sought to clarify her vote on a controversial topic. Millett wrote that the city had failed to fully show in court how some of its registration requirements — particularly a 15-question test on local gun laws — were sufficiently related to the government’s interest in promoting public safety.

“The District failed that task,” Millett wrote in a brief statement attached to the court’s order.

The court’s 2-to-1 ruling in September upheld as constitutional many of the District’s registration rules, such as requirements for fingerprinting and a one-hour firearms safety course. But the decision eliminated the city’s prohibition on registering more than one gun a month…

So, is this a good ruling? Hey, it’s the District of Columbia; they’re always going to have strict gun regulations due to who lives there and the high-level foreign officials who come through every day. It’s also a liberal bastion. Those two factors alone sort of throw a wet blanket on the notion of our nation’s capital loosening their gun laws. Constitutional carry in D.C.; are you on bath salts? What is good is that for the most part, every country recognizes a citizen’s right to carry firearms after the proper paperwork (unless you live in a constitutional carry state). That alone is a huge win for the Second Amendment rights movement. In some areas, those rights may be very narrowly defined­–and permits may be distributed in an arbitrary manner–but our side has won the narrative (for now). We must always be vigilant of course. Yet, for now, it’s a good day to be a supporter of American civil rights. Moreover, if the Supreme Court decides to hear arguments regarding “may issue” permit laws, and the whether the “justifiable need” clause is constitutional; it could lead to DC and other anti-gun states being forced to become “shall issue” states.

Advertisement

Those states are required by law to hand out permits if the recipient has passed the background check and filed all the appropriate paperwork correctly.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement