DC AG defies court order on concealed carry licensure

[TZucchini]

It is a civil rights issue.

The District AG deserves to sit in jail no more or less than Kim Davis did. Regardless, he should be disbarred at the end of this process. He hasn't even deigned to file for an injunction pending appeal of the order, he's just openly flouting the district court. He's trash.

The Constitution says absolutely nothing about concealed carry permits.

But I do agree that the AG should respect the court order.

[Fasc]

The Constitution says absolutely nothing about concealed carry permits.

But I do agree that the AG should respect the court order.

But it does prevent the infringing upon the right to bear arms... and since you can't open carry in DC that leaves only concealed carry. A denial of concealed carry at this point becomes a denial of 2nd Amendment rights outright so yeah... it does in this case.

[Stormdash]

The Constitution says absolutely nothing about concealed carry permits.

But I do agree that the AG should respect the court order.

The order spelled out pretty plainly that "keep and bear arms" does pretty plainly cover carrying about of weapons on one's person, not just in their home.

[TZucchini]

But it does prevent the infringing upon the right to bear arms... and since you can't open carry in DC that leaves only concealed carry. A denial of concealed carry at this point becomes a denial of 2nd Amendment rights outright so yeah... it does in this case.

There is no Constitutional protection that is specific to concealed carry. Concealed carry licenses are a privilege, not a right.

[Pangean]

He reported what the cop told him and then contacted the AG's office and was told to make a formal complaint online, that's pretty solid to start from and even with the edit added in after, that still leaves the cop that told him they had orders to defy the court order.

But hey... its the Federalist, assassinate the source, no harm done. /wink

He called the AG office and got someone who he didn't name (poor journalism) and attempted to allude that because they said if he had an issue file a complaint that somehow defended his claim about the AG's position. When you want to claim the position of the AG you talk to them or someone that can speak on behalf of them. And then you name the source of that information. You know journalism 101. But again the Federalist is hardly a beacon of journalism. And if that's assassinating them by pointing it out and with this story as evidence of such then so be it.

[Stormdash]

There is no Constitutional protection that is specific to concealed carry. Concealed carry licenses are a privilege, not a right.

As an opening premise, the face value of "keeping and bearing arms" would be that constitutional carry, open or concealed, is the <i>baseline</i>, the way that "I can say anything I want, anywhere, on any subject" is the baseline notion of free speech. And like free speech, any and all steps away from that baseline requires the restriction be justified. "it's not unlimited" -- true, pat response but true -- but each and every limit requires the government justify itself.

[Dystemper]

There is no Constitutional protection that is specific to concealed carry. Concealed carry licenses are a privilege, not a right.

That is where the "bear arms' part of the 2nd comes in.

bear arms
phrase of bear

1.
carry firearms.

[Fasc]

There is no Constitutional protection that is specific to concealed carry. Concealed carry licenses are a privilege, not a right.

But the right to bear arms... IS. This issue, in its totality, is a 2A problem because if the only options for bearing arms are open and concealed and both are made illegal, then you've made bearing arms illegal and thus violated the Constitution. Concealed carry by themselves is not a right, it is a specific privileged means of bearing arms.

[TZucchini]

As an opening premise, the face value of "keeping and bearing arms" would be that constitutional carry, open or concealed, is the <i>baseline</i>, the way that "I can say anything I want, anywhere, on any subject" is the baseline notion of free speech. And like free speech, any and all steps away from that baseline requires the restriction be justified. "it's not unlimited" -- true, pat response but true -- but each and every limit requires the government justify itself.

Federal Courts have justified it.

[Fasc]

He called the AG office and got someone who he didn't name (poor journalism) and attempted to allude that because they said if he had an issue file a complaint that somehow defended his claim about the AG's position. When you want to claim the position of the AG you talk to them or someone that can speak on behalf of them. And then you name the source of that information. You know journalism 101. But again the Federalist is hardly a beacon of journalism. And if that's assassinating them by pointing it out and with this story as evidence of such then so be it.

So let's define the points of poor journalism:
>Called office and didn't name person on the other line
>Called the office of the AG to get a position stemming from the office of the AG

The first is a common "problem" for pretty much every single journalism outlet that exists. Full stop. At best you typically get "spokesperson" or "secretary" or "office staff member" which offer no real information as to the source other than "part of the staff of an official office." This particular source is relevant if and only if the person being spoken to cannot actually speak for the actions of that office with any reasonable assurance of knowing what is and isn't going on. If he was told to take his complaint online and not over the phone, chances are he was speaking to a secretary or assistant who simply gave him the usual "We cannot discuss these matters here, if you have a complaint, please fill X out..."

Secondly, the staff speaking for the AG is no different than a Whitehouse staffer speaking on behalf of the President on specific matters. If I call the X administration and speak with someone there and they give me information concerning whatever it is I ask about, that's not 100% official but it is 100% quotable and usable in reporting, as it has been done for decades by multiple rags across the US. The AG doesn't make decisions in a vacuum anymore than the President does, so if the person on the other line offers ANY kind of information about the topic, there's a solid chance that person isn't just the janitor who has a bone to pick with his bosses.

You're being quite knitpicky for the sake of dismissing the source outright and calling the journalist a "journalist" /snicker

- - - Updated - - -

Federal Courts have justified it.

All that is is a narrowly defined ruling on concealed carry with no actual consideration for open carry or other forms of carry, meaning they've only justified in an explicitly narrow case that can't really be applied more broadly without further rulings down the line. "You aren't guaranteed concealed carry but we say nothing of your right to bear arms" is just a side step of the grander 2A question.

The DC laws have already specifically outlawed open and concealed carry and since no one else has come up with an alternate 3rd form of bearing arms, that puts them squarely in the land of negating bearing of arms entirely, not just one particular form.

[Deleted]

The Washington DC Attorney General is ordering the police to deny concealed carry permits contrary to Federal court orders.



source

All of those that cheered when the Kentucky country clerk was jailed for contempt of court (for failure to grant gay marriage licenses) should be clamoring to have this AG jailed as well as the police officers that are following the illegal orders to deny the permits.

No see, She was only going against the courts because she has faith in a god, they are doing it because they hate guns.

[TZucchini]

The DC laws have already specifically outlawed open and concealed carry

What? You might want to tell DC that they've outlawed concealed carry.

[Rooflesstoofless]

Federal Courts have justified it.

That is a state's rights and reciprocity issue; not a allowance for government officials to make the law up as they go along.

If the person had a CO i.d. they would have gotten their CCW no problem (as long as they aren't disqualified because of criminal/mental issues). CO is a shall issue state.

[Fasc]

What? You might want to tell DC that they've outlawed concealed carry.

The "Good Reason" doctrine was specifically shot down because that's what it did, it outlawed concealed carry unless you could prove arbitrarily why you wanted/needed/should be allowed. Distinction without difference, hence it being struck down for infringing upon the right to bear arms.

[Stormdash]

Federal Courts have justified it.

10th Circuit does not include Washington, D.C. of course. Thus far the 10th is in the minority, too. A common byproduct of being wrong, that.

- - - Updated - - -

What? You might want to tell DC that they've outlawed concealed carry.

Perfectly summarizing most of what you don't get about constitutional law. You don't need "a good reason", it's the government that has to justify denying you.

[Pangean]

So let's define the points of poor journalism:
>Called office and didn't name person on the other line
>Called the office of the AG to get a position stemming from the office of the AG

The first is a common "problem" for pretty much every single journalism outlet that exists. Full stop. At best you typically get "spokesperson" or "secretary" or "office staff member" which offer no real information as to the source other than "part of the staff of an official office." This particular source is relevant if and only if the person being spoken to cannot actually speak for the actions of that office with any reasonable assurance of knowing what is and isn't going on. If he was told to take his complaint online and not over the phone, chances are he was speaking to a secretary or assistant who simply gave him the usual "We cannot discuss these matters here, if you have a complaint, please fill X out..."

Secondly, the staff speaking for the AG is no different than a Whitehouse staffer speaking on behalf of the President on specific matters. If I call the X administration and speak with someone there and they give me information concerning whatever it is I ask about, that's not 100% official but it is 100% quotable and usable in reporting, as it has been done for decades by multiple rags across the US. The AG doesn't make decisions in a vacuum anymore than the President does, so if the person on the other line offers ANY kind of information about the topic, there's a solid chance that person isn't just the janitor who has a bone to pick with his bosses.

You're being quite knitpicky for the sake of dismissing the source outright and calling the journalist a "journalist" /snicker

Not sure why you are proving my point for me but thanks. And it's not however how other real journalism outfits works. Can you imagine the howls if the NY Times did what this "Journalist" did.

He tried to claim validation of his point by talking to some unknown person who told him if had an issue file it online. I guess asking for the name of the person and their position was beyond the skillset of this "journalist". They did not say or suggest or imply that was the position of the AG. Did that stop the "journalist" form implying it did? Nope.

It be like me calling the Whitehorse switchboard and suggesting their comment that someone was not available was speaking to Obama's position on minimum wage. That's not acceptable from real journalists. Which is my point.

[Deleted]

Perfectly summarizing most of what you don't get about constitutional law. You don't need "a good reason", it's the government that has to justify denying you.

I suppose good reason would have qualified as a standard if, 'because i would like one' qualified as a reason.

[TZucchini]

10th Circuit does not include Washington, D.C. of course. Thus far the 10th is in the minority, too. A common byproduct of being wrong, that.

Do you think this will end up in front of SCOTUS? Will be interesting to see how the 2016 election plays into this.

Perfectly summarizing most of what you don't get about constitutional law. You don't need "a good reason", it's the government that has to justify denying you.

Which, in my opinion, is not a difficult task.

[Fasc]

Not sure why you are proving my point for me but thanks. And it's not however how other real journalism outfits works. Can you imagine the howls if the NY Times did what this "Journalist" did.

He tried to claim validation of his point by talking to some unknown person who told him if had an issue file it online. I guess asking for the name of the person and their position was beyond the skillset of this "journalist". They did not say or suggest or imply that was the position of the AG. Did that stop the "journalist" form implying it did? Nope.

It be like me calling the Whitehorse switchboard and suggesting their comment that someone was not available was speaking to Obama's position on minimum wage. That's not acceptable from real journalists. Which is my point.

The NYT you say?

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.co...tic-says/?_r=0

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.co...public-editor/

My point in its entirety is that journalists, without the stupid quote marks, rely upon unnamed and often unrelated sources very often. Sometimes the unnamed source is 100% validated as is seen in the above discussions about anonymity, but that also allows for ridiculous shorthand in trying to get a story out. "Did you call the office of X to get an opinion on Y? Yes? Print it."

So no, the Federalist is no less a place of journalism than the NYT if ambiguous usage of unnamed and/or unsubstantiated claims are a hallmark of shoddy journalism. That being said, I agree that journalists SHOULD get all the info they can, as accurately as they can, etc etc, journalistic ethics, yadda yadda... but this is pretty much the state of journalism across the board and that's what we have to work with. So either the journalist is outright lying about the cop or they did get the brush off twice. Editing the story after the fact with an update in position and quotation from official sources is definitely better than a lot of other media outlets...

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.co...public-editor/

http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-rea...of-journalism/

- - - Updated - - -

Do you think this will end up in front of SCOTUS? Will be interesting to see how the 2016 election plays into this.



Which, in my opinion, is not a difficult task.

Perhaps in layperson levels of justification, sure. But when it comes to curtailing Constitutional Rights, the standards are ridiculously strict and begin with the right being justified all by itself.

[Stormdash]

Do you think this will end up in front of SCOTUS? Will be interesting to see how the 2016 election plays into this.

Eventually a circuit split over the right to carry will end up before the Supreme Court, but unless there is a cram-down of post-constitutional left-wing moonbats on the Court, the only meaningful issues will be whether carry is implicated by the 2nd Amendment and maybe what level of scrutiny, specifically, is required under Heller and McDonald, it wouldn't be a reversal of either case.

Which, in my opinion, is not a difficult task.

So far, the only reliable bets would be history of violent crime or a present, apparent risk of committing one. Otherwise, "shall issue" should be the only rule on carry permit.