U.S. judge strikes down D.C. concealed-carry gun law as likely unconstitutional

[btq96r]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/us-judge-strikes-down-dc-concealed-carry-gun-law-as-likely-unconstitutional/2016/05/17/d36d35dc-1c49-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html

It'll be appealed, but it's another gun rights case where Heller is being felt.  Between this and finding the NSA metadata collection unconstitutional, Judge Leon is all right in my book.  

Edited May 17, 2016 by btq96r

[Worriedman]

On 5/17/2016 at 3:39 PM, btq96r said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/us-judge-strikes-down-dc-concealed-carry-gun-law-as-likely-unconstitutional/2016/05/17/d36d35dc-1c49-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html

It'll be appealed, but it's another gun rights case where Heller is being felt.  Between this and finding the NSA metadata collection unconstitutional, Judge Leon is all right in my book.  

Now see, we agree on more than you might imagine. 

[Sidecarist]

It just irritates me to no end that I never read in these cases where the point is made that LAW ABIDING gun owners commit VERY few crimes. I'll admit I don't know the numbers but almost no carry permits get revoked due to the commission of a crime.

The issue isn't guns, its criminals and this is blatantly ignored by the media, but you also never see this argument made in these court cases.

[btq96r]

59 minutes ago, Sidecarist said:

It just irritates me to no end that I never read in these cases where the point is made that LAW ABIDING gun owners commit VERY few crimes. I'll admit I don't know the numbers but almost no carry permits get revoked due to the commission of a crime.

The issue isn't guns, its criminals and this is blatantly ignored by the media, but you also never see this argument made in these court cases.

That's because such facts are irrelevant to these cases.  It's all about whether or not a government is within the bounds of its authority in passing and enforcing the law as written.  Maybe in our state, the wording of our Constitution having "with a view to prevent crime" in the wording it can stick, but courts have historically deferred to legislatures as to something like "a view" being up to them.

The place to inject the facts and statistics you mention is in the legislative fights, but even there, they do little good.  Most legislatures are just playing their part from a script, with the committee hearings and votes being for show.  The TN General Assembly is a great example of this.

[Sidecarist]

Hmm, but when the argument states that carrying in public by law abiding citizens might increase the danger to the public at large then the argument that legally owned guns and legal gun owners are NOT the problem is valid and applicable. 

 

[btq96r]

58 minutes ago, Sidecarist said:

Hmm, but when the argument states that carrying in public by law abiding citizens might increase the danger to the public at large then the argument that legally owned guns and legal gun owners are NOT the problem is valid and applicable. 

 

Again, courts defer to legislatures unless they're out of bounds.  Their concept of increased danger would win, unless they are in violation of a specific law that can can be shown by a plaintiff.  Kind of like how some cities are ignoring the guns in parks law and we all know that's bull when you read the law.  Not sure on where the cases are on that, yet.

It wouldn't be right for a court to look at empirical data and use that to overrule elected officials when they are technically within the bounds of the law as it stands.