Victory for Concealed Carry IS Coming, Patience Patriots

By Mark Walters
Editors Note: AmmoLand News welcomes Mark Walters to our growing list of the best and brightest gun rights commentators, who are watching out for your RKBA.

Second Amendment Rights
When Wrenn v. DC makes it to SCOTUS for review, that’s when we’ll win. Hands down.
Mark Walters
Mark Walters

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- Well, the Supreme Court refused to hear the Peruta case on Monday.

Okay, now what?

I’m hearing a ton of “gloom and doom” from many in the pro-rights community and frankly, I’m kind of disappointed. Like everyone else, I’ve had time to ponder the decision not to take the case. Am I disappointed that the court decided not to hear Peruta? Of course I am, but I’m not pulling my hair out. I am of the opinion that a better case exists.

Yes, like you I’m anxious for this to be resolved. I want it done. It’s high time the court ruled on the splits in the circuits but I’m also aware that they eventually will. But when?

When Wrenn v. DC makes it to SCOTUS for review, that’s when. And we’ll win. Hands down.

In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a liberal justice or two come over to our side when the ruling is finally issued. That’s my gut and I may be wrong, but I don’t think so.

The DC case is stronger than Peruta, sets us up for a victory and with the current makeup of the court, (one swing vote with Kennedy) a couple of justices may not have wanted to hear Peruta for fear it could have been lost knowing the next (and only) one we tee up, (Wrenn v. DC), won’t be lost. I’m not uncomfortable about it, just impatient, but able to put that aside for now. Here’s a taste of the decision in Wrenn as a reminder:

[T]his Court agrees with defendants that the District’ s interest in public safety is implicated by people carrying guns in public, and certainly more so than when they keep guns within the confines of their homes. But, unfortunately for defendants, it does not automatically follow that the District has a compelling interest in reducing to the greatest extent possible the number of law-abiding, responsible citizens eligible to carry guns in public. Rather, when the District’s pursuit of public safety substantially burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, as issuing licenses only in certain self-defense situations does, it must at the very least prove that the policy achieves significant public safety gains and that those gains would not be achieved by a more inclusive licensing policy.

Defendants have failed to meet these criteria, and I am skeptical that they can. They waste much ink on the irrelevant contention that plaintiffs cannot prove that “more guns equals less crime.” In strict scrutiny review, however, defendants bear the burden of justifying their policy. More important still, defendants do not even attempt to explain why the District’s licensing scheme could not be broader and allow for more responsible, law-abiding citizens to obtain concealed carry permits for their legitimate self-defense needs, while simultaneously protecting public safety.

All they offer by way of reasoning is that all guns, even guns carried in self-defense, increase the incentive for criminals to carry guns, or increase the chances for accidents. But as plaintiffs rightly emphasize, “it is ‘not a permissible strategy’ to reduce the alleged negative effects of a constitutionally protected right by simply reducing the number of people exercising the right.”

Rather, the District’s licensing restrictions would only be narrowly tailored to achieve public safety if they were targeted at keeping guns away from the people who are likely to misuse them or situations where they are likely to be misused. On the record before me, I must agree with plaintiffs that defendants are unlikely to be able to show the “good reason” requirement is narrowly tailored to this end. . . .

Although the District’s “good reason” requirement likely does keep guns out of the hands of some people likely to misuse them, it does so only by keeping guns out of the hands of most people. . . . Because the District’s law is likely wholly disproportionate to the public interest it could legitimately serve, there is a strong likelihood plaintiffs will ultimately succeed in showing the law is not narrowly tailored and is, therefore, unconstitutional. . . .

Conclusion

In Heller, the Supreme Court’s unequivocally asserted that “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” The District’s understandable, but overly zealous, desire to restrict the right to carry in public a firearm for self-defense to the smallest possible number of law-abiding, responsible citizens is exactly the type of policy choice the Justices had in mind.

Because the right to bear arms includes the right to carry firearms for self-defense both in and outside the home, I find that the District’s “good reason” requirement likely places an unconstitutional burden on this right. Accordingly, I hereby GRANT plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction and enter an order that enjoins the District of Columbia from denying concealed carry licenses to applicants who meet all eligibility requirements other than the “good reason” requirement. . . .

Keep this in mind–It is still possible to get a CCW in some parts of California, it’s virtually impossible to get a CCW in all of D.C. I know it sucks for those in California but in reality, what the court’s decision (not to take) Peruta means is what was yesterday is today. No changes. Hang in there everyone. The day of reckoning is coming and I’m betting that when Wrenn v. D.C. is granted certiorari, it’s a guaranteed victory.

Again, remember, Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 is getting legs, combine passage and signature of that bill, amended to put in the language Rep. Barry Loudermilk discussed with me on AAR’s Daily Defense last week, cap it off with a future SCOTUS win with Wrenn and the anti-gun nutjobs are another nail closer to being history.

On a side note, you can rest assured that the Gorsuch pick to fill Scalia’s open seat was a win for gun rights. Take that to the bank.

About Mark Walters

Mark Walters is the host of two nationally syndicated radio broadcasts, Armed American Radio and Armed American Radio's Daily Defense with Mark Walters. He is the Second Amendment Foundations 2015 Gun Rights Defender of the Year award recipient and co-author of two books, Lessons from Armed America with Kathy Jackson (Whitefeather Press) and Lessons from UnArmed America with Rob Pincus (Whitefeather Press)

  • 30 thoughts on “Victory for Concealed Carry IS Coming, Patience Patriots

    1. Your entire editorial can also be true, IF you change the noun “D.C.” to the noun “Maryland”. You have not only hit the nail on the head but have DRIVEN the nail completely through a PERFECT 8” x 8” grade “A” piece of lumber.
      To qualify for a carry permit in the “may issue State” IS IMPOSSIBLE for a LEGAL LAW ABIDING American, with NO CRIMINAL RECORDS, who happens to live in the State of Maryland.

      1. Given the right circumstances it is POSSIBLE for me to fly to the moon also, though everyone I know would rate it as highly improbable.

        1. Vanns, you will more likely fly to the moon than get a CC license’/permit in MD.

      2. Yes, md sucks at the testicle of the dnc it is true. What is also true is that this will never change, even on the eastern shore. What is also true is I am so very happy not to be a native of this place and have my whole life tied to it. I am happy to NOT call myself a marylander, Im from the free zone about 3 hours away where gun owners have had the ultimate respest and trust bestowed upon them by people who respect our rights.
        Walking around here makes me sick seeing all of these old “men” dressed up in pastel colored button down shirts walking obediently behind thier wives who are holding thier leashes with thier heads down waiting gor permission to take thiet testicles out and wear them for awhile.
        In line at the poles last year a few very Trump hating women were in line in front of me with thier little men in tow, all standing quietly by waiting to follow the instructions of thiet hanflers and one of the men broke protocol and spoke and his wife actually scolded him for it. After the embarrassing interruption she let him finish but I noticed that while he was addressing the other neutered ynics there, he never, not one time, broke eye contact with his handler, and she was shaking her head approvingly as if letting him know he was reciting correctly.
        It was sick.

    2. Were you running out of space ? [Again, remember, Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 is getting legs, combine passage and signature of that bill, amended to put in the language Rep. Barry Loudermilk discussed with me on AAR’s Daily Defense last week, cap it off with a future SCOTUS win with Wrenn and the anti-gun nutjobs are another nail closer to being history.]
      You could have told us about the amendment. Not everybody listens to your show.

      1. Would you like to wager on National Reciprocity? Anyone who tells you “oh, it’s gaining support, we’re really moving forward” is feeding you bs to keep you happy and smiling until they tell you “we got so mired down with healthcare and tax reform that it was just impossible this year but boy, you just wait till next year…”. Only problem is, next year is mid terms and it’s going nowhere. Now, want to bet? I’ll be happy to be wrong and admit it but history says I won’t be.

    3. If it’s settled law, those who settled it need to be taken behind the woodshed and made to read the plain, unambiguous language of the Constitution. The 2nd is not convoluted. Don’t pretend it is.

    4. For those that read, this debate ended in 2008 with the Lawful definition of “bear arms” being provided by the Supreme Court in D.C. v Heller:

      “Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or ***in the clothing or in a pocket***, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” “

    5. Is there a small town somewhere in this country that would be willing to deputize people after an appropriate background check and payment of an annual fee (for certification purposes), say $100. Im not working out all of the details here but Im thinking you would get 100,000 people per year from states that restrict open carry. You would then fall under LEOSA provisions for carrying nationwide. After 10 years you would retire from the town and for $50-$100 per year after that remain retired. This would be a boon to the right legal town. Any takers?
      I know this is dumb but this is simply a free market responding to stupid laws.

      1. Then you are perpetuating the “only ones” philosophy, and that’s something we want to completely eliminate.

        1. LEOSA covers all current and retired LEOs at (pretty much) all levels, not just feds. There is still some ambiguity though, one ‘patch’ that was put on was to cover such ‘agencies’ as AMTRAK police as well as certain military LE (Army MPs & AF SF/AP types). There are still some folks who are in the ‘gray’ area. Won’t go into more detail as that could lead to a doctoral dissertation level discussion.

      2. Sheriffs can deputize anybody in some states and counties. But this is usually restricted to residents of that county. Here in Kansas a sheriff in a county with a population of , as I recall, greater than 250,000 cannot deputize with full authority unless the person attends and graduates from the state law enforcement training center.
        In some western Kansas counties a sheriff might have a posse that does crowd control, S&R and other non-armed services.
        I’d like to see HR 38 2017 version with Massie’s [sp?] amendment to be sure DC is included as a state for te purpose.

        But If Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions was a personal friend I’d ask to be appointed a U.S. Marshall with no duty assignment and for only $52,000 a year. 😉

    6. If CCW reciprocity passes, who’s going to trust Rahm Emanuel and other big city mayors to honor it? Look at the way Heller and McDonald are being ignored. I sure wouldn’t bet my freedom and rights on it.

      1. If it’s written properly there will be teeth in it, meaning if they violate it you’ll be a very rich man in the end.

        1. True enough, but that time interval from the time you get hooked and booked until you finally prevail could be several years and cost you lots of bucks up front. Most of us are not willing to face those consequences so just avoid areas like that.

          1. Make the law so it pierces sovereign immunity and not only can the individual officer be personally sued but so can the judge and prosecutors, complete with huge mandatory monetary fines and jail sentences, and you’ll find that that problem vanishes. Similar to Utah’s “No Katrina” law.

    7. Mark Walters: You ask us to wait for SCOTUS take up Wrenn. Why? During the last election cycle were we all not promised by NRA, by Republican candidates running for office, by GOA and just about every other pro-gun entity in this country that if we 1. Gave enough money, 2. Worked our butts off on rallies and 3. Did everything in our power to elect a Republican Congress and President we would see the following almost immediately: 1. National Reciprocity, 2. Passage of the Hearing Protection Act and finally, the easiest of them all, something that can be accomplished with the stroke of a pen,(Congress isn’t even involved)the reversal of Obama’s Executive Order banning the further repatriation of firearms from South Korea (M1’s).

      Where is the fruit of our labors? Yes, we have a solid SCOTUS Justice, but that’s for future cases and here you are asking us all to just be patient and wait, yet again. Have Congress, the President, NRA or GOA fulfilled any of their main campaign promises to gun owners, a single one? Answer, no they have not. Gun owners have the right to demand that these promises be kept before ANY organization, any politician, any President asks for one more single thing of us.

      No more waiting, Mark. No more waiting Mr. President. No more waiting Congress and pro-gun organizations. In 2018 you will desperately need our help to keep the Senate and possibly the House. Keep your promises to us right now or we may decide there really is no difference between you and the other party.

      1. It took almost 20 years after the Revolution in 1775, when almost everybody was in general agreement to get a Constitution.

        Immediately in a Republic means 1 to 4 years. National Reciprocity should happen before Christmas. It took 30 years to get CCH passed in Kansas, The original law written by my friend, Senator Phil;lip B Journey has been revised every year since 2007, the first year licenses were issued.

        We got the snowball rolling down the hill. Pretty quick we have NFA arms of all kinds and can use suppressor for hnting. We just can’t use an M60 to hunt deer.
        The no gun signs are mostly meaningless advisories. There are no criminal penalties. There are no restrictions on what you carry by type or caliber. We’ve had Constitutional Carry about 3 years now.

        Except for the gang-bangers and drug lords who shoot each other and their clients, crime is not a serious problem with firearms.

        Legislation and courts are not like buying a car, it takes time.

        1. I have scant patience for a Congress and a National Gun Rights group that has, for nine years, kept saying “just give us this and we’ll get it done” then “we just need more money and we can do it” then ” we’re that close, just one more push”. They’ve got it all, no more excuses, no more money, no more elections, no more support until they produce!

          Regarding NFA arms, there are a finite number of them with ZERO being added so if I were you I’d hardly count that as a win, especially with an FNC that cost $7-8,000 ten years ago now priced around $16-18,000. They are way overpriced because the NRA caved and allowed the Hughes Amendment to be added to FOPA.

          No, no more waiting, no more giving Congress one inch or forgiveness or wiggle room. Support gun owners and the Second Amendment now or pay the price in the midterms.

    8. Open carry is not the ONLY method of carry included within the scope of the Second Amendment. All court cases prior to HELLER and McDonald must be reconsidered based on the clear “individual right” not connected solely to “militia duty.”

      Furthermore, open carry can be viewed in light of English Common law, that wearing arms to intimidate and terrorize was not lawful.

      Tactically and socially concealed carry is the superior method of carry in urban areas. The weapon carried openly becomes a target for theft because the mugger[s] can see and identify their target and close to within an arms length. They can then prevent your deploying your weapon when they take it from you. You cannot legally draw early, when they are 10 feet away because in an urban area people are often at elbow distance. Until you are actually attacked you cannot even draw your weapon. To do so early is at least “brandishing” and at worst aggravated assault, a major felony.

      Arguing for “only open carry” is seeking a loss of rights and a limitation on the actual right to self-defense because your weapon and methods are limited.

    9. Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don’t carry a purse. Besides, Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution, concealed carry can be banned.

      “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251…” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2816

      “[A] right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809

      “We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.” McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) at 3050.

      “But the majority implicitly, and appropriately, rejects that suggestion by broadly approving a set of laws — prohibitions on concealed weapons…” Heller dissent at 2851

      “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons…” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 – Supreme Court (1897) at 282.

      1. Charles, regardless of the rulings of the courts, what does “shall not be infringed” mean to you?

        1. Heed the Call-up – It means to me what I said it means in my appellate briefs in a Federal lawsuit which seeks to overturn California’s Open Carry bans. I wrote in my briefs:

          The Second Amendment says that the right shall not be infringed. A law need merely encroach upon the periphery of the right to infringe the right and therefore be unconstitutional.

          The laws [Open Carry bans] at issue here do more than encroach on the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, they destroy the right. Infringement should be the one-step framework this circuit should adopt.

          This Court is not allowed to engage in judicial interest-balancing, ends means testing, or to engage in its own historical analysis. The Second Amendment comes with its own standard of judicial review. If a law infringes on the Second Amendment right then it is unconstitutional.

          The Second Amendment does not fit into the standards of review that courts have applied to the First Amendment. A firearm is either carried openly or it is carried concealed. A firearm is either carried in a sensitive place or it is not. A firearm is either carried for the core right of self-defense against public or private danger or it is not. Nor is there any “alternative” means of exercising one’s individual, enumerated, fundamental right to keep and bear arms such as the courts have applied to lesser Federal rights.

          This [Open Carry] ban does not just infringe on the periphery of the Second Amendment right. It strikes to the very core of that right and therefore cannot survive any standard of review, not even rational-basis.

          1. Charles, I asked because your first statement seems to accept that CC is “bad”, and that the RTKB arms only means OC. Yes, politicians and the courts have told us that CC is “bad” and have made and upheld laws to that effect, but I do not see anywhere in the 2A that makes that so.

            Oddly, then, your reply to me has all that language that would imply that you believe in “shall not infringe”, and yet still conclude that the 2A only covers OC and not CC.

            1. Heed the Call-up – With the exception of travelers and persons actually on a journey, concealed carry is not a right under the Second Amendment. That was also mentioned in my briefs but as I do not seek in my lawsuit to carry a weapon concealed anywhere or under any circumstances, I left it at that.

              That concealed carry is bad and is not a Second Amendment right is settled law, which I agree with.

            2. Charles, it may be “settled law” in California and a handful of other socialistic states, but it is lawful in my state and most of the rest of the country, and if national reciprocity passes, it will be coming to your state, too.

    Comments are closed.