The fact that an individual may be able to demonstrate a greater need for self-protection, and therefore meets the “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement, does not indicate, in any way, whether that person is less likely to misuse handguns or may be less dangerous. See Drake, 724 F.3d at 454 (Hardiman, C.J., dissenting).12 Nor does the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement make it less likely that those who meet this requirement will accidently shoot themselves or others or engage in criminal activity than those who cannot meet this requirement. See id. The fact that a person may have a greater need for self-protection says nothing about how limiting the carrying of handguns to such individuals would result in a reduction of risk to other members of the public or reduce violent crime. Is the Court to conclude that people who do not have a heightened need for self-protection are more likely to commit violent crimes?
Frederick J. Scullin, Jr.
May 18, 2015
BRIAN WRENN, JOSHUA AKERY,
TYLER WHIDBY, and SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and CATHY L. LANIER,
[H/T Firearm Policy Coalistion (BREAKING: Washington, D.C. “May Issue” Handgun Carry License Law is Unconstitutional, Rules Federal Court Today).
The decision as a whole says “may issue” carry is probably unconstitutional and pending the actual ruling a preliminary injunction is granted against the highly restrictive D.C. “may issue” law. There are other jurisdictions that are going to have to take notice soon!
Others will have a lot more to say about what this means and the likely response of D.C. See for example see what Sebastian has to say about this ruling. But I really wanted to point out is that in the last sentence I quoted above judge is calling the anti-gun people out on merely making “reasoning sounds” rather than a logical argument. He’s mocking them!
I especially like the part where the court agrees the plaintiffs should post a bond to cover the costs if the preliminary injunction was improperly granted. The plaintiff have to put up a bond of $1000.00. I regard that as a slap in the face for the tyrants of D.C.—Joe]