Federal judge tosses D.C.'s restriction on concealed carry

Democrats have a very hard time when they are ordered by federal judges to respect the limits imposed on them by the Constitution. Telling you what to do and what not to do, and under what conditions, is what they live for. That is especially true when it comes to gun rights. So when the all-Democrat-all-the-time cabal that rules the District of Columbia was ordered by courts to respect residents' concealed carry rights, the D.C. luminaries of course tried to find a way to not respect them regardless.

---

You want a concealed carry permit? You need a good reason! And who will decide if your reason is good enough? We will, of course. Nope, said District Court Judge Frederick Scullin. Smacked down again:

The latest iteration was over a revised carry rule that went into effect on Oct. 9, 2014. It stipulated that the chief of police could issue a carry permit only when an applicant had: “Demonstrated a good reason to fear injury to his or her person, which shall at a minimum require a showing of a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks that demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life … [or] [d]emonstrated any other proper reasons for carrying a concealed pistol, which shall at a minimum include types of employment that require the handling of cash or other valuable objects … ” Only a handful of individuals applying for a permit have been able to receive one since the rule took effect. In fact, as the court pointed out, this provision prevents the plaintiffs “as well as the vast majority of law-abiding citizens” of the District from being able to obtain a permit because they can’t meet the “good reason/proper reason” requirement. In his 23-page opinion, Judge Scullin systematically dismantles all of the arguments advanced by the District, noting that it leaves residents “unable to exercise their fundamental right to bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment.”

Remember a few years ago when Congressman Fortney "Pete" Stark of California declared that the federal government can basically do whatever it wants? This is the sort of thing he was talking about. A court may order you not to do something, or to respect someone's rights, or to grant some petition you don't want to grant. For a Democrat, that doesn't mean you actually do what the court told you to do. It means you find a new dodge that you hope will stand up in court better than the last one. The court says you have to grant concealed carry licenses? OK. Fine. No problem. But only under rules that make it a practical impossibility to actually get one. Then if anyone has the nerve (and the time, and the money) to challenge you in court, you wait to see how you come out, depending of course on what judge you draw and a variety of other factors. And if you lose that one, you just try something else. At no point do you actually accept the limits the Constitution imposes on your power. That's not what Democrats do, regardless of the level of government we're talking about. All the D.C. local government is doing here is following the lead of their federal masters. They got smacked down, sure, but don't think for a second they'll just give up and start respecting their residents' concealed carry rights. They'll just start looking for a new way to disrespect them. They're Democrats. It's what they do.