D.C. Council Presses Forward with Backward Concealed Carry Law

D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier
D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier
NRA-ILA
NRA – ILA

Charlotte, NC –-(Ammoland.com)- This week, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier announced that the District would soon begin accepting applications for licenses to carry a concealed pistol.

It’s questionable if many applicants will actually receive a license because of the nearly unfettered discretion given to the chief under the temporary law that is currently in effect.  That law has numerous problems, yet the D.C. City Council appears to be intent on making the temporary law permanent.

At a hearing on the permanent concealed carry bill, which is virtually identical to the current temporary law, members of the council and Chief Lanier hinted that they may actually be planning to make the law worse.  The Washington Times reports that Lanier proposed two changes while at the hearing.

First, Lanier proposes that taxi drivers be prohibited from carrying a firearm, presumably only while they are actually working.  The public safety benefit of such a prohibition is not clear, but it is clear that such a requirement would pose a serious danger to cab drivers who have a very real need to carry a firearm.  The law requires an applicant to show a special need to carry a firearm that requires the applicant to demonstrate “good reason to fear injury to his or her person, which shall at a minimum require a showing of a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life . . . .”  Notwithstanding that this requirement all but requires an applicant to be a victim of a violent crime before applying for a license, which for some will be too late, Chief Lanier is seeking to deny a person who is in such imminent danger of the most a ready means to defend themselves based on their occupation as a cab driver.

Lanier would also like to further compound the problems in the law with places where even a licensee cannot carry a firearm.  Because the temporary law and the proposed bill have several prohibited places that would be difficult for a licensee to identify, the law and bill both require that a person is informed of the existence of one of these prohibited places before they are arrested.  Lanier would like to eliminate this notice requirement for “public gatherings and special events.”  The chief did not explain how a licensee is supposed to tell the difference between an official “public gathering” and any other gathering of people, but she does want the authority to arrest any licensee who mistakenly enters one of these gatherings or events while carrying a firearm.

No changes were actually adopted at the hearing, but the council and Chief Lanier seem intent on implementing a law that fails to comply with the court decision that held the District’s prior ban on carrying handguns unconstitutional.  Councilmember Tommy Wells obliquely admitted that the current proposal is likely unconstitutional when he told the audience at the hearing that the council would likely be forced to revisit the law in the future.

Rather than passing such a blatantly unconstitutional proposal, perhaps Councilmember Wells and the rest of the council should instead focus on upholding their oaths of office by introducing and passing legislation more in line with the 42 states that actually respect their citizens’ right to bear arms.
About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

15 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
mikrat

A state citizen is one of “We the People” found in the preamble to the constitution. You can be in a state without being in the United States. In fact, if you read their codes, the United States in the United States Code is the District of Columbia and the Territories. The Puerto Rico website even talks about it. The US citizen A US citizen does not have any rights. “…the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers… Read more »

mikrat

Washington D.C is not a State – is is an area that is completely Controlled by CONgress and they can make any laws or rules they want to control the Subjects that live their – The Constitution really does not apply there.

Read the Act of 1871

Eric

Still trying to oppress your right to bear arms, even more oppression owning a pistol. Need to end the socialist government that has grown since 1910 . Why would DC be so concerned about laq abiding citizens being armed? oppression is the only answer that comes to mind. Think free , speak free , carry free no permits or fees.

Time2WakeUp

The last straw.I am getting a concealed carry permit 1. We are unable or Obama is unwilling to protect our borders. 2. Terrorists have just proven that strict gun control laws do not work by their cowardly attacks in Canada. Of all countries, Canada is the most unaggressive country in the world with the possible exception of Switzerland. 3.We can no longer expect our government at any level to protect it’s citizenry from attack. 4.If our citizens are armed, the cowardly Isl**ic Terrorists will consider us too dangerous to mess with. 5. We will all be dead before our deadbeat… Read more »

mikrat

“The last straw.I am getting a concealed carry permit”

Why are you going to ask permission and turn YOU RIGHT into a Privilege?

TexasTom

And this is the reason I live in Texas. A law abiding citizen can buy a gun as easily as you can buy underwear.

james

How about all off duty officers, including the Chief, leave their service weapons at the police station until their next work assignment?

Yeah, I don’t think so.

Chris Rakes

That is the reason you don’t leave the foxes in charge of the hen houses. the cops are more corrupt then a crook or even a politician.

Leo Smith

Hey Chief. F you and your opinion. It’s as worthless as you and the democrats.

Leo Smith

One robbery in a home is sufficient reason to arm yourself to the teeth, and shoot first ask questions when with a Lawyer.

Kevin McGonigal

At some point the US Supreme Court must step in and rule that if the Second Amendment does indeed guarantee firearm ownership and use to Americans then municipalities and states may not impose such restrictions that the process of acquiring or possessing them becomes so onerous as to nullify the right. In addition when such entities are sued successfully there must be some level of cost to the officials who concoct these impermissible restrictions. Sue on this basis and no other.

mikrat

They have – but the States don’t listen and the Sheep have no clue – FOOTBALL! FOOTBALL! FOOTBALL! Arms restrictions even concealed weapons bans are unconstitutional, since arms bearing is an individual right and the legislature may not restrict any aspect of such a right. Bliss v. Commonwealth UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42, SECTION 1988 When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it.” State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147 65 NW 262 30 ALR 660. Also see (Watson v. Memphis, 375 US 526; 10… Read more »

RDNK

If ‘some’ people in DC are lucky enough to get a license just remember never to actually use a firearm in defense of yourself ! If you’re a cab driver in that city of 95% ‘young black thugs’ who want to rob you and worse,dont even apply ! That idiot police chief,city council need to be thrown in jail for not honoring,slow walking a court order ! The 2A is my reason for that goddamn license ! ( which you shouldn’t have to have in the first place)