http://www.ijreview.com/2015/05/325...edium=email&utm_campaign=afternoon_newsletter
Ten months ago, U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. ruled Washington, D.C.’s ban on carrying firearms as unconstitutional. Monday, he gutted the district’s new permitting process, in response to his original ruling.
The law, which was passed in September, provided carry permits for D.C. residents – only if they could show a good reason to carry a weapon, like a legitimate fear of injury or, as the law states, “any other proper reason for carrying a pistol.”
Judge Scullin again found the law, known as the “good reason” provision, unconstitutional.
The Washington Post has details of the ruling:
However, in a 23-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. ruled that condition — known as the “good reason/proper reason” requirement — still “impinges on Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment right to bear arms,” because it fails to target dangerous people or specifically how or where individuals carry weapons.
“The issue here is not whether the . . . requirement is a reasonable or wise policy choice. Rather, the issue is whether this requirement, no matter how well intended, violates the Second Amendment,” Scullin wrote.
Ten months ago, U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. ruled Washington, D.C.’s ban on carrying firearms as unconstitutional. Monday, he gutted the district’s new permitting process, in response to his original ruling.
The law, which was passed in September, provided carry permits for D.C. residents – only if they could show a good reason to carry a weapon, like a legitimate fear of injury or, as the law states, “any other proper reason for carrying a pistol.”
Judge Scullin again found the law, known as the “good reason” provision, unconstitutional.
The Washington Post has details of the ruling:
However, in a 23-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. ruled that condition — known as the “good reason/proper reason” requirement — still “impinges on Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment right to bear arms,” because it fails to target dangerous people or specifically how or where individuals carry weapons.
“The issue here is not whether the . . . requirement is a reasonable or wise policy choice. Rather, the issue is whether this requirement, no matter how well intended, violates the Second Amendment,” Scullin wrote.
