D.C. to propose ‘may-issue’ concealed carry standard

D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray, not a fan of concealed carry outside the home.  (Photo: USA Today)

D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray, not a fan of concealed carry outside the home. (Photo: USA Today)

Big shocker, right?

After a federal judge ruled that the District’s outright ban on concealed carry was unconstitutional back in July, the city council was given approximately three months to draft a concealed carry issuance standard.

Of course, Washington, D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray and his anti-gun cohorts opted to go with the toughest standard that exists: ‘may-issue,’ at least according to the Associated Press which broke the story Wednesday afternoon.

Unlike ‘shall-issue’ concealed carry standards that simply require one to pass a background check and successfully complete gun-safety training, the ‘may-issue’ mandate requires one to provide to one’s local chief law enforcement officer a “good and substantial reason” to carry a firearm outside the home.

In many cases, simple self-defense is not sufficient. Instead, one needs to show the CLEO that they are imminent danger and/or have a restraining order against a dangerous individual.

The details of D.C. Mayor Gray’s CCW standard should be released later today.

{ 8 comments… add one }
  • Doc September 22, 2014, 7:04 pm

    Kali is county by county issue – some, like NE “Kali’ – are ‘Presumed Carry’ – you are presumed to have the right to carry if you have passed their test, their live-fire drill, and pass background. Other Counties, San Francisco to be specific, do not even allow current holders of CCW’s to ‘carry’ – on-duty, active cops, are asked to ‘lock-box’ their side arm until they leave the country – failure to do so DOES get you (on an average day) a ticket for ‘obstruction of justice’ (failure to obey a lawful order of a lawful cop) all the way up through ‘lose your firearm, have it mailed to you C/O ‘Sheriff’ of your county, where your Chief (if you are PD) MUST accompany you to pick it up; all the way up through ‘losing your sidearm’ even if it’s department issued. I’ve heard all stories and versions there of). Civilian? Count your blessings if the firearm is NOT confiscated and destroyed right off the bat. In rural counties it’s only POLITE to let you SO unit that’s stopped your for something (are you OK) to just wanting to shoot the bull on a long, boring route someone has to do every couple of days or once a week. It’s just polite – and mostly they don’t care and simply joke “Don’t make any quick movements in it’s direction.” and we both give the mandatory laugh to the dead serious warning. Most cops know everyone is probably has a firearm, and legal folks tell them out of being polite, other choose not to – if you don’t offer, you well may get a ‘stop’ later on when before the cop might just tell you – you have a misdemeanor warrant for failure to appear for a speeding ticket – take care of it – and let you slide – it’s FAR easier to warn on a traffic warrant, than it is to try to transport in over 30-50 miles of dirt roads.

    So – depends where you are VERY rural – the cops already know who has what and probably when – so saying does no good or bad, if you have a small warrant out, it will probably get you ‘slid’ past as a warning – if your attitude test scores B or better — CHP are very different – you NEVER slide with them – so warn only upon it’s GOING to be discovered.

    So Kali is two (click) yes two (click) laws in one. One where everyone can get and carry if they want to pay what ever the fee is, and do your live-fire every 3 years, and one where you need to PROVE BEYOND DOUBT (even beyond reasonable doubt) you need one. If an off duty cop can’t carry, or an ‘on duty’ cop from another country has to lock-box his sidearm – in his own squad car’s trunk- you can pretty much say you CAN’T EVER CARRY – though the forms are there. Even one of the L-T’s who acts as one of the range-masters had to trunk and lock his counsel electric lock/with code long-arms (12ga 870 x1, 16 x 1, 700 300 win.mag. x1) And the reminder that he was a ‘visitor in this city’. So he could carry his belt, minus the sidearm and mags – and like he said, a holster is just WRONG without a side arm in it, so that too went into the trunk. THAT is the City of San Francisco and the professional politeness I am told they show to other LEA’s. The ‘polite” part you are ASKED to PLEASE disarm and put your firearms into a lock-box – and if you don’t have one, they have one they can loan you. Others simply have their sidearms taken away, and mailed back to the Sheriff of the County from which the License was issued — and they call and let you know when it comes in and you do have to sit down and talk to who-ever in on duty about why, oh why, did you not listen in class and at live-fire to NOT carry inside city limits. Then warned, they are not like us, don’t make that mistake again, or we might hold your firearm for X weeks before re release it. But if you have another one you are qualified on, you can use that one while you wait.

    So Kali IS two (click) yes! TWO (click) States in ONE!

  • Robert September 22, 2014, 12:35 pm

    Mayor Gray fails to recognize all their past history of being one of the most murder oriented cities along with Chicago, Detroit, etc in the country. When did it suddenly become safe? Mayor, if it is so safe why are snipers on all the roofs around the government buildings and M-15 armed police patrolling the streets? have them put down their guns and we will too. No, not really. I am no idiot like he is. People who are armed at gunpoint, raped suddenly or have their homes suddenly invaded with disastrous results have no compelling reason to have a gun before hand. How do you answer them? Why do cops all over the nation carry guns. Most, according to records, will never draw their weapons more than once in their careers if even that. It would be well if ignorant, self important people like Mayor Gray would at least get facts from the FBI before they display their ignorance before the public and citizens for whom they bear the responsibility of protecting.

  • Joe McHugh September 22, 2014, 11:41 am

    May issue gun permits are defacto no issue gun permits. Let’s face it, one doesn’t need to carry a handgun just for the novelty of it. One wants to carry a handgun to protect his or her life. By rejecting the protection of life claim, the authorities in Washington, D.C. have the perfect way to outlaw the intent of the Second Amendment.

    For anyone confused about that intent I will present this quote. “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” George Washington

    The authorities in Washington, D.C. could recover some measure of honor by making the gun control law a “shall” issue regulation, that recognizes the reason that the ordinary citizen wants to carry a firearm for a credible means to defend his or her life.

    Actually, I don’t understand just why any authority requires a gun carry permit for a competent, law-abiding adult citizen.
    I’m pretty sure that Washington would be appalled by the arrogance of such authorities. Background checks at the time of sale? Absolutely, but gun permits and licenses, not so much.

    • shootbrownelk September 23, 2014, 9:22 am

      Good thoughts Joe, In today’s world everyone needs to protect themselves. Chicago tried stonewalling the concealed weapons permits just about exactly the same way D.C. is proceeding. Doomed to failure…and at what legal cost to taxpayers?
      Make it a MUST ISSUE process. And by the way…did you see the photo of the Mayor? Looks like he just ate a pound of nails for breakfast…or his wife just turned down his carnal request!

      • Joe McHugh September 25, 2014, 9:01 pm

        shootbrownelk, The competent, law-abiding adult citizens either have the right to keep and bear arms or they don’t.
        I simply do not understand why some of our “trusted” elected representatives do not understand the intents listed in the Bill of Rights.

        The worst abusers of our inherent rights are the Democrats, especially the Black Democrats. I know, I know, but identifying obvious facts is not being a racist. I have never heard a rational defense for restricting firearms to anyone except the usual suspects, the violent criminals and the adjudged dangerous psychotics.

        These fairly dense officials say that they are interested in fighting crime but their real reason for ever-more gun regulations is to bring about a defacto method to disarm the populace. Their motivation? They are authoritarians and they are just intelligent enough to know that one cannot abuse the rights of an armed populace.

        Fear the government that fears your guns.

  • AK September 22, 2014, 8:58 am

    This is a legal way out for DC, just like it is for Maryland, Kali, and New York and New Jersey. Problem solved for them until a court ruling that may-issue is illegal.

  • SmokeHillFarm September 22, 2014, 3:49 am

    Gun rights supporters need to bombard D.C. with FOIA requests to find out exactly WHO already has carry permits — which will probably be ex-mayors & city council members, or members of Congress, or ex-cops & chiefs of police. And I’ll bet few of them can show any real evidence of credible death threats.

    If we force them to “level the playing field” and treat everyone equally, it will drive them nuts and probably force them to loosen their expected standards.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend