Politics

Judge Stops DC from Enforcing Part of ‘Good Reason’ Gun Law

Published

10 years ago

May 20, 2015

JESSICA GRESKO, Associated Press
BEN NUCKOLS, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — People in the nation’s capital no longer have to show a good reason to get a permit to carry concealed handguns outside their homes and businesses.

The District of Columbia’s police chief said Tuesday that she’s dropping this requirement, a centerpiece of the city’s handgun-control legislation, after a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against it.

This is round two for the city and U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr., who also found the city’s ban on carrying handguns outside the home unconstitutional last year. Now he’s stopped the city from enforcing the key provision of a law the D.C. Council adopted in response.

The city’s law, one of the nation’s toughest, says a person must show a “good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property” or another “proper reason for carrying a pistol” to get a concealed-carry permit. Reasons might include a personal threat, or a job that requires them to carry or protect cash or valuables.

“For all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms,” Scullin wrote in his 23-page ruling. His next hearing in the case is July 7.

States including Maryland, New Jersey and New York already require people to provide a reason for these kinds of permits, and federal courts have found them to be constitutional, according to a report the city did before passing its own new law.

D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine said he still believes the law is “constitutionally valid,” but his statement did not say whether the city will appeal.

Attorney Alan Gura, who is suing the city on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation and three individuals, said he expects an appeal and won’t be surprised if the city asks to reinstate the requirement pending a final decision in court.

Alan M. Gottlieb, who founded the Washington state-based foundation, said he’s “delighted.” Requiring a reason for a permit “stinks, and always did stink, and now everybody knows it,” his statement said.

D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier, who has final decision-making authority on issuing the permits, said she won’t deny anyone for failing to show a reason. She also said she doesn’t think the preliminary injunction will prompt a spike in applications. About 100 people have applied for permits, and very few have been denied, she said.

“The vast majority of people applying for permits to carry in the District are not D.C. residents,” Lanier said on NewsChannel 8’s “NewsTalk” program. “Our residents are very clear that this is not something they wanted.”

___

Follow Jessica Gresko at http://twitter.com/jessicagresko and Ben Nuckols at https://twitter.com/APBenNuckols

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Amid Criticism, Clinton Sticks to Low-Key Campaign Strategy

Don't Miss

For Many American States, It’s Like the Recession Never Ended

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of December 25 – 31, 2024

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of December 25 – 31, 2024

Published

2 days ago

December 26, 2024

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Alameda County

Last City Council Meeting of the Year Ends on Sour Note with Big Budget Cuts

In a five to one vote, with Councilmembers Carroll Fife and Janani Ramachandran excused, the council passed a plan aimed at balancing the $130 million deficit the city is facing. Noel Gallo voted against the plan, previously citing concerns over public safety cuts, while Nikki Fortunato-Bas, Treva Reid, Rebecca Kaplan, Kevin Jenkins, and Dan Kalb voted in agreement with the plan.

Published

4 days ago

December 24, 2024

Oakland Post

Oakland City Council voted on a plan to balance the $130 million deficit at their last regular meeting of 2024. The plan reduces police spending by $25 million, temporarily closes two fire stations, and guts the cultural arts programs. iStock photo.

By Magaly Muñoz

In the last lengthy Tuesday meeting of the Oakland City Council for 2024, residents expressed strong opposition to the much needed budget cuts before a change in leadership was finalized with the certification of election results.

Oakland police and fire departments, the ambassador program, and city arts and culture will all see significant cuts over the course of two phases.

Phase 1 will eliminate two police academies, brown out two fire stations, eliminate the ambassador program, and reduce police overtime by nearly $25 million. These, with several other cuts across departments, aim to save the city $60 million. In addition, the council simultaneously approved to transfer restricted funds into its general purpose fund, amounting to over $40 million.

Phase 2 includes additional fire station brownouts and the elimination of 91 jobs, aiming to recover almost $16 million in order to balance the rest of the budget.

Several organizations and residents spoke out at the meeting in hopes of swaying the council to not make cuts to their programs.

East Oakland Senior Center volunteers and members, and homeless advocates, filled the plaza just outside of City Hall with rallies to show their disapproval of the new budget plan. Senior residents told the council to “remember that you’ll get old too” and that disturbing their resources will only bring problems for an already struggling community.

While city staff announced that there would not be complete cuts to senior center facilities, there would be significant reductions to staff and possibly inter-program services down the line.

Exiting council member and interim mayor Bas told the public that she is still hopeful that the one-time $125 million Coliseum sale deal will proceed in the near future so that the city would not have to continue with drastic cuts. The deal was intended to save the city for fiscal year 2024-25, but a hold up at the county level has paused any progress and therefore millions of dollars in funds Oakland desperately needs.

The Coliseum sale has been a contentious one. Residents and city leaders were originally against using the deal as a way to balance the budget, citing doubts about the sellers, the African American Sports and Entertainment Group’s (AASEG), ability to complete the deal. Council members Reid, Ramachandran, and Gallo have called several emergency meetings to understand where the first installments of the sale are, with little to no answers.

Bas added that as the new Alameda County Supervisor for D5, a position she starts in a few weeks, she will do everything in her power to push the Coliseum sale along.

The city is also considering a sales tax measure to put on the special election ballot on April 15, 2025, which will also serve as an election to fill the now vacant D2 and mayor positions. The tax increase would raise approximately $29 million annually for Oakland, allowing the city to gain much-needed revenue for the next two-year budget.

The council will discuss the possible sales tax measure on January 9.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Protesters Gather in Oakland, Other City Halls, to Halt Encampment Sweeps

The coordinated protests on Tuesday in San Francisco, Oakland, Vallejo, Fresno, Los Angeles and Seattle, were hosted by Poor Magazine and Wood Street Commons, calling on cities to halt the sweeps and focus instead on building more housing.

Published

4 days ago

December 24, 2024

Oakland Post

The California Poor People’s Campaign’s Victoria King erected encampments for unhoused Oaklanders. Victoria King and her committee erected these emergency tents to symbolize the needs of unhoused Oaklanders. Photos by Post Staff.

By Post Staff

Houseless rights advocates gathered in Oakland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and other city halls across California and Washington state this week protesting increased sweeps that followed a U.S. Supreme Court decision over the summer.

“What we’re dealing with right now is a way to criminalize people who are dealing with poverty, who are not able to afford rent,” said rights advocate Junebug Kealoh, outside San Francisco City Hall.

“When someone is constantly swept, they are just shuffled and things get taken — it’s hard to stay on top of anything,” said Kealoh.

Local houseless advocates include Victoria King, who is a member of the coordinating committee of the California Poor People’s Campaign. She and Dr. Monica Cross co-chair the Laney Poor People’s Campaign.

The demonstrations came after a June Supreme Court ruling expanded local governments’ authority to fine and jail people for sleeping outside, even if no shelter is available. Gov. Gavin Newsom in California followed up with an order directing state agencies to crack down on encampments and urging local governments to do the same.

Fresno, Berkeley and a host of other cities implemented new rules, making it easier for local governments to clear sidewalk camps. In other cities, such as San Francisco, officials more aggressively enforced anti-camping laws already on the books.