DC has, because they were forced to by the courts, enacted legislation that allows people to get pistol permits in order to carry a firearm while in the city…sort of.
Unfortunately the District looked to places like New York City and other rights infringing metropolitan areas to model there new program on. And while they MAY be technically following the judges orders, it is akin to a childish tantrum in which a parent tells one child to stop touching the other so the belligerent child holds his fingers a hairs breath from the skin all while cackling “I’m not touching you, I’m not touching you.”
As the Associated Press reports:
“Mayor Vincent Gray and other city officials said they plan to propose legislation that would make the District of Columbia similar to a half-dozen states, including Maryland, where residents can be denied a concealed-carry permit if they can’t show a need for one. … The District is seeking to let the police chief decide whether people have a reason to carry a concealed firearm, and officials said living in a high-crime neighborhood would not be a sufficient reason to obtain a permit.”
So basically, if the Police Chief doesn’t believe that citizens should have carry permits (which he doesn’t) he can just say ‘NO’ to all of them and have a de facto carry ban that the courts had just ruled unconstitutional. Sure, he’ll give out a few permits to his buddies and cronies who aren’t cops in order to keep up appearances, but much like in New York City, the chances of being allowed to exercise your right when you are not either rich or well connected is all but nil.
Hopefully the DC Circuit Court of Appeals will follow the example of the 9th circuit, who ruled earlier this year in Peruta v San Diego that discretion on the issuing authority can not help but lead to instances where that authority denies the right of the people and as such is unconstitutional. California is now a shall issue state (pending appeal) as is Hawaii that had a ruling overturned (Baker v Kealoha) by the 9th Circuit after the Peruta v San Diego verdict.
It seems that acutally being able to exercise a civil right is back in vogue. But what if we applied the same type of mindset that DC and NYC place on the 2nd Amendment to others? This is what an America run by DC and NYC looks like in regards to civil rights.
1st Amendment: You cannot voice an opinion unless you take elocution lessons, are certified in speechgiving, and can display the “need” in which you feel it necessary to speak your mind. The result of which will be determined by the issuing authority of the Vocal Speech Permit card.
3rd Amendment: Unless you can express a valid reason accetable to the authority why troops should not be quartered in your home, you will be forced to provide room and board for them for a time based on the authorities discretion.
4th Amendment: You must document every item, paper, and piece of property you own and submit it to the authority before they allow you to be safe from searches.
5th Amendment: You will be provided with due process of law…AFTER you prove your innocence to the authority.
6th Amendment: You will provide reasoning why you believe you require a speedy trial and may or may not be granted one based on the issuing authorities discretion.
13th Amendment: You must provide reasoning why you shouldn’t be made a slave or be placed in indentured servitude, you may or may not be enslaved based on the issuing authorities discretion.
15th, 19th, 24th, 26th Amendments: You must provide reasoning why you have a need to vote as well as providing the necessary proof that you are qualified to vote and disclose who you are voting for, as well as pay all fees and charges required in order to receive the permit to vote. The permit to vote will be issued at the discretion of the authority.
The right to free speech, the freedom from illegal searches and seizures, the right of due process and a speedy trial, liberty, the right to vote and freedom from poll taxes…
If these rights were treated in the same manner that the 2nd Amendment is, the Amendment that specifically states that it “shall not be infringed” then we wouldn’t have much of an America left. At least not one that the founders who want their names attached too.
We don’t allow our other rights to be determined by an issuing authority…we don’t have to pay to vote or to speak or to not be a slave, why then do we have to go through the injustice of doing so just to exercise our God given right to keep and bear arms for the security of our lives, our family, our property and our country?
I answer you that we do not. With luck the courts will continue to hold to their recent rulings and strike down the liberty crushing infringements that places like DC and NYC still have in place.
I would like it if we didn’t have to rely on the courts to do so, but some places like the aformentioned cities just aren’t going to free themselves, but it doesn’t mean that the rest of the country should follow their lead into being subjects of the authority.
We are Americans, so long as we are armed, we are free.
The only person’s discretion that should matter into whether we are armed or not is our own.
Send this to friend