Washington DC has been ordered to allow concealed handguns… But, c’mon, let’s not get carried away. I mean, why on Earth would we rush to allow such American freedoms in America’s capitol, right? Following in the footsteps of liberal enclaves like Boston, New York, and the People’s Republic of California, Washington DC is paying lip service to the Second Amendment by crafting a “May Issue” concealed carry rule.
Essentially, the rule amounts to an arbitrary case-by-case determination of concealed carry applications, where applicants will be asked to provide a “legitimate” reason for carrying a gun. According to WJLA:
The District is seeking to let the police chief decide whether people have a reason to carry a concealed firearm, and officials said living in a high-crime neighborhood would not be a sufficient reason to obtain a permit. People who’ve received death threats or have been the victims of domestic violence are among those who could be granted permits.
Sufficient reason? Have you seen that cute piece of parchment housed in the National Archives building lately? In short, anyone hoping to possess the tools necessary for adequate self-defense will be required to convince a group of bureaucrats and police brass (the same bureaucrats and police brass that originally thought handguns should be completely banished from the district) that there is a “sufficient” reason for armed protection.
Apparently you need to have the date and time of your future mugging handy when applying. “Excuse me, I would like to get a carry license, because someone is going to try to attack me next Friday at 10:30 pm…”
And really, even then the application could still be denied. Officials even went so far as to point out that living in a high-crime neighborhood will not be seen as “sufficient” reason for arming one’s self. The message from the city to its residents seems to be pretty simple: Just be a victim like everyone else in the neighborhood, and quit your whining.
But let’s be honest: DC is not alone. The tactic of weighing down liberties in arbitrary bureaucracy is almost becoming common place in America. Prohibition by regulatory burden has long been the favorite tool to discourage gun ownership in the Big Apple, Chicago, and other bastions of progressive “enlightenment”. (Oddly, these places seem to be plagued by violence… It’s almost as if bad guys aren’t keeping up with all these new gun laws.)
I’d also like to know where our “civil leaders” are on these clear usurpations of human rights. After all, such discriminating administrative tactics tend to disproportionately prohibit legal firearm ownership among minority groups and lower-income families. There’s a reason similar laws were common place among Southern Democrat states in the years after the civil war, as racist politicos attempted to prohibit freed slaves from arming themselves. (High enough fees, burdensome enough red tape, and arbitrary licensing schemes also plagued the progressive paradise of 1930’s Germany, and Stalin’s Soviet Union, for similar reasons.)
WJLA rightly pointed out that the practice of such arbitrarily restrictive licensing might well be in conflict with the ruling that compelled DC to entertain the idea of concealed carry in the first place:
Alan Gura, an attorney for plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said the proposal did not comply with the judge’s order. “In America, the police don’t determine what rights we have good reason to enjoy,” Gura said. “You don’t need a good reason to speak, to worship, to vote, or to carry a gun for self-defense.”
So Washington DC is about to allow concealed carry. And if you can convince an anti-gun police department that you are somehow in imminent danger, they’ll consider taking three months to issue you a permission slip that allows you the “right” to arm yourself. Yeah… That complies perfectly with the Bill of