Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« DC's reaction to Palmer | Main | Self-defense lanyard »

As expected....

Posted by David Hardy · 29 July 2014 09:46 AM

DC moves for a stay of the injunction. It asks either for a stay pending appeal (which would last until any appeal is decided) or for one of 180 days, to give it time to draft a permit system. I guess the City Council is a little slow-moving.

UPDATE: the judge granted a 90 day stay. He also clarified that the only issue raised was carrying of handguns, so his ruling is confined to that.

7 Comments | Leave a comment

Kendal Black (@KendalBlack) | July 29, 2014 1:11 PM | Reply

Well, let's remember the brief shining moment when D.C. was, in theory, constitutional carry, and work for the day when it is again.

Guns were legal and nothing bad happened because of it. Hmm... Makes you think, if you're capable.

Ken M | July 29, 2014 1:55 PM | Reply

The last part of the article has to be incorrect. The judge's ruling addressed two distinct problems with DC's anti-gun policies. The second was their refusal to issue registration for persons who reside outside the district (e.g., defendant Edward Raymond), which under the first part of his ruling would allow them to carry. Assuming that the rest of the ruling stands, they're required to allow carry by non-residents, something several states also refuse to do.

FWB | July 29, 2014 2:27 PM | Reply

Again, the Constitution FOR the United States grants "exclusive legislation" to Congress. This clause restricts all legislative acts in DC to acts made by Congress. The Constitution FOR the United States grants no delegative authority to Congress so Congress cannot set up the DC council and allow the council to make any laws. For the laws in question to be valid and Constitutional, Congress would have had to pass these laws.

The grant was made in order to keep other governments, primarily the states ceding the land, from passing laws in the area but the limitation does not contain any "reasonable" allowance for a local government to act.

We will never get back to a Constitutional system so long as idiots can't understand the clear and exact language of the Constitution. Without the Constitution, the federal government has absolutely zero powers. With the Constitution, the federal government has only those powers granted (10th Amendment) and no more. Every decision to the contrary is simply and easily proven wrong. The claim that the Framers left the word "expressly" out of the 10th is a red herring because there use of "expressly" would have been redundant in the clause and was thus unnecessary. The claim that the N&P clause expands the powers is so easily proven incorrect that it boggles the mind that anyone would believe such an unreasonable and illogical concept.

Jim D. | July 29, 2014 3:02 PM | Reply

Would a judge issue an injunction like this if the review standard were Strict Scrutiny? I would think that an unrestricted right would trump any attempt by the government to water down a compelling state interest.

If the challenge to D.C.'s law met the Rational Basis requirements to get it thrown out in the first place, that would leave an assumption that the judge was leaning toward Intermediate Scrutiny.

DamDoc | July 30, 2014 11:19 AM | Reply

the ruling included allowing carry by non-residents with carry permits... Could that extension lead to an ultimate overturn of the entire ruling on the basis that non-residents have no standing and/or to date, states have not had to acknowledge permits from othe states? Or, could only part of the ruling stand and part be thrown out ?

Anonymous replied to comment from FWB | July 30, 2014 11:27 AM | Reply

Technically, Congress does legislate the home-rule ordinances passed by DC municipal government -- albeit backhandedly.

Dec. 24, 1973, 87 Stat. 777, Pub. L. 93-198, title I, § 102 (codified as DC Code § 1-201.02. Purposes):

(a) Subject to the retention by Congress of the ultimate legislative authority over the nation's capital granted by article I, § 8, of the Constitution, the intent of Congress is to delegate certain legislative powers to the government of the District of Columbia; authorize the election of certain local officials by the registered qualified electors in the District of Columbia; grant to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia powers of local self-government; modernize, reorganize, and otherwise improve the governmental structure of the District of Columbia; and, to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the constitutional mandate, relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially local District matters.

FWB | July 31, 2014 7:46 PM | Reply

Reply to anonymous:

Delegata potestes non potest delegari. That which has been delegated cannot be further delegated.

Once delegated to Congress no grant was given for Congress to delegate the authority to any other body. Exclusive legislation would also act to negate the legitimacy of any delegation from Congress because once delegated Congress can no longer hold exclusive legislative authority in the District.

So we simply have another constitutional violation resulting in a breach of trust.

Congress was not granted "ultimate authority" but exclusive. The grant was not absolute, meaning the Constitution remains superior and is still the supreme law of DC under which Congress is required to act. There are no grants in the Constitution allowing Congress to shirk their duties just because they have too much to do. IF Congress were to follow the limited powers granted, they would not have too much to do. The burden over DC was placed on the heads of Congress with no out.

Leave a comment