The District of Columbia is fighting tooth and nail to keep its “good reason” requirement for obtaining a concealed carry permit on the books.
The City, in the case of Wrenn v. District of Columbia, filed an appeal last week asking the entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to review a ruling by a three-judge panel from the same court that struck down the requirement back in July.
The city’s request for an en banc review was no surprise. The anti-gunners that run D.C. love the “good reason” requirement because it is a convenient way for police to deny Joe Public a carry permit.
“The Second Amendment Foundation expected the City of Washington, DC to file this appeal in an attempt to try to overturn our court victory that said their virtual ban on the right to carry a firearm for self-protection was unconstitutional,” said Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.
Under the District’s concealed carry law signed into effect back in 2014, permit applicants had to provide to the police chief a “good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property” or “any other proper reason for carrying a pistol.”
In other words, D.C. was treating the 2A like a privilege — not like a fundamental right. You had to not only seek permission but provide evidence that you were going to be a victim of an attack before it happened (Hmmm… think about that logic). And if the police chief didn’t accept your reason, well, then he or she could deny your application willy-nilly.
SAF challenged the “good reason” requirement in court and won. The District argued that because of its dense population that includes “thousands of high-ranking federal officials and international diplomats” it needs a more restrictive issuing standard.
That three-judge panel, in a 2-1 decision, shot down that reasoning, saying that “the District’s good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. That’s enough to sink this law under (the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller ruling).”
But the District is hoping that the full court will buy into their claptrap about “high-ranking officials” and “diplomats” and overturn the panel’s decision.
“They have no intention of complying with any court decision that supports the right to keep and bear arms,” Gottlieb said. “It took the Heller decision to force them to allow a gun in your own home for self-defense. It took the Palmer decision, another SAF case, to force them to repeal their total ban on carry and now they are kicking and screaming about losing the Wrenn decision.”
“Municipal stubbornness cannot be allowed to outweigh the constitution,” added Gottlieb. “A civil right should not be subject to bureaucratic neurosis.”
We’ll keep you posted on this case.