Quote of the day—Emily Miller‏ @EmilyMiller

ALL AMERICANS can apply for DC gun carry permit, not just residents. Here’s link, but ignore the good reason part!

Emily Miller‏ @EmilyMiller
Tweeted on July 26, 2017
[Amazing. I started carrying a gun in the mid 1990s and DC not only prohibited carry, it also prohibited handgun possession unless the gun was registered with DC before 1976.

I still see the requirement to be registered and pay money to exercise what is acknowledged to be a specific enumerated right as an infringement of that right but it is a extreme improvement.

We have a lot of people to thank for this change, Alan Gura, CATO Institute, SAF, and the NRA are the most obvious but Emily Miller and her book were also significant contributors.

If you squint just a little you can see constitutional carry in DCs future.*—Joe]


* Yes. I know DC had constitutional carry for a few days three years ago (to the day of Emilly’s tweet) but it did not persist. This may not persist either but this time it is going to last more than a few days.

9 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Emily Miller‏ @EmilyMiller

  1. The real question is not whether you can apply, but whether you can carry. Yesterday I read a sequence of articles about applying for a NYC permit. The applying part worked just fine, but getting approval is quite another question. Ditto in some benighted states like HI and CA where you can’t actually get a permit.

    • Since Hawaii is mentioned here, just for those who may not be aware, there are zero CCW licenses currently issued in the state of Hawaii (where “exceptional case” is the language used rather than D.C.’s “good cause”). Not one single citizen may lawfully bear arms outside the home for self-defense. Four (4) licenses have been issued in the past seventeen (17) years (only two since 2002: one to a judge, and one to a military member) since the state mandated that the county police departments, who have the responsibility for processing applications, were required to report monthly all firearm related paperwork (we have full registration, “permits to acquire”, etc.). There is no provision for open carry licensing unless you are on duty as a uniformed security guard.

      Oh, and in case anyone is wondering about the state constitution, it reads:

      Article I, § 17 of the Hawaii Constitution states: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” [And no, they weren’t referring to “muskets, etc.”, as that was written and passed in 1959.]

      Ironically this section of the state constitution is entitled: RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS [upper case in original].

      Sound familiar? Every single politician, judge and law enforcement officer in the state (including the police chiefs who administer the de facto “no issue” policy) have taken an oath of office to uphold both the U.S. and the Hawaii state constitutions.

  2. Pingback: SayUncle » Wonder how that would go?

  3. “This may not persist either but this time it is going to last more than a few days.”

    Well, it hasn’t started yet, and may not ever start… so there is nothing to “last”.

    D.C. has 30 days before the order negating the “good cause” requirement goes into effect to request an en banc hearing or file a SCOTUS cert petition. If they request an en banc hearing or file a SCOTUS cert petition, they will likely also ask for, and likely be granted, a temporary stay on the order pending the en banc or SCOTUS cert petition outcomes.

    My understanding is that if D.C. does NOT request either of the above possible remedies at the end of the 30 days, the order will go into effect 7 days following that date. You can bet that by that time the D.C. Council will have crafted another version of their CCW licensing ordinance that will have new/other/amended more time consuming and costly hoops to jump through even if the current version of “good cause” will no longer exists ‘exactly’ as it does at the moment.

    D.C. has been through this a couple of times before and they never went any further than they thought they could get away with (see the current cases) in “slightly modifying” the existing law in a way they knew would simply lead to another lawsuit. That’s the case again this time, and there is no way in the world that at the end of 30 days they are going “shall issue”.

  4. for the “good reason” part, I suppose one could pencil in, “Wrenn v. D.C.”

  5. Wouldn’t “Terrorist threat” qualify as a “good reason” to fear injury? Or how about “crazy people trying to harm politicians”? Unfortunately, I’m only being partially sarcastic. If I’m walking around DC I may end up being in the WPWT. Of course the correct answer to any “good reason” requirement is “it’s my Constitutionally protected right.”

  6. I found an interesting fact on handgunlaws.us.
    DC requires resident applicants to complete 16 hours of class room training and 2 hours range time. But as of June 25th 2017 DC has not yet certified any instructors to perform this training. And therein lies the problem with “certification”. On paper they can’t ban guns, but in practice they can delay or otherwise restrict access to “training”.

    • Petition for a Writ of Mandamus? Known to ordinary citizens as an order to a government official to “do your damn job and sign that paper!”

    • It’s a bit like the infamous attempt by Teddy “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy to tax ammo out of existence. “No, we’re not banning guns… you’re perfectly welcome to have a gun, you just can’t afford to load it…”

Comments are closed.