• ← Back to INVESTOR TIMES
  • Investing Articles
  • Financial Markets News
  • Tech News
  • Cryptocurrencies News
FREEDOM OUTPOST
No Result
View All Result
FREEDOM OUTPOST
No Result
View All Result
FREEDOM OUTPOST

DC Judge Puts the Brakes on Government’s “Overly Zealous” Ban on Concealed Guns

Freedom Outpost by Freedom Outpost
November 29, 2020
in News
0

District Judge Richard Leon struck down a part of Washington DC’s gun carry law as unconstitutional on Tuesday.

In a 46-page ruling, in which he ordered a preliminary injunction, Leon put a halt on how DC police have only approved permits for people to carry their guns concealed who had a “good reason to fear injury” or those who are employed in jobs that are considered to be high risk.

Leon wrote that law-abiding responsible citizens should be able “to carry arms in public for the purpose of self-defense” and that right “does indeed lie at the core of the Second Amendment.”

“The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,” Leon wrote, quoting the 5-to-4 Heller Supreme Court decision from 2008 which established a constitutional right to keep firearms inside one’s home.

take our poll – story continues below Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“Because the right to bear arms includes the right to carry firearms for self-defense both in and outside the home, I find that the District’s ‘good reason’ requirement likely places an unconstitutional burden on this right,” he wrote.

Judge Leon then called the violations of the constitutionally protected rights of citizens that was imposed by DC in 2014 “understandable, but overly zealous.”

“The District’s understandable, but overzealous, desire to restrict the right to carry in public a firearm for self-defense to the smallest possible number of law-abiding, responsible citizens is exactly the type of policy choice the Justices had in mind,” he wrote.

Frankly, I don’t know what is understandable about issuing permission (permits) in order for one to exercise a God-given right to keep and bear arms. It seems clear to me that if rights do come from God, as our founding fathers expressed in the Declaration of Independence, that no government has a right to infringe on those rights, and among those rights is the right to keep and bear arms.

Interestingly enough, a pro-gun, pro-sodomite group known as Pink Pistols joined with Matthew Grace in suing DC.

“This is not a want,” Gwendolyn S. Patton, head of Pink Pistols International, said. “This is a need. This is a right that we have and we are going to exercise it. We wish to exercise it legally and therefore we’re going to challenge this idea that you have a right to tell us what is a sufficient cause for us to carry a gun.”

While I agree with Patton that this is not an issue of want, but of rights, she went on to say that sodomites face “an awful lot of instances where we get targeted by people who don’t like us, don’t like what we do, don’t like what we stand for, don’t like our politics.”

Not to get sidetracked, but Patton added, “They don’t think we have the right to go about our lives in a normal fashion and decide to harm us, to attack us, to hurt us, and, in many cases, to kill us. This is unacceptable to us so we advocate the use of the Second Amendment to protect ourselves from such things.”

Personally, we know of many faked crimes against professed sodomites they actually engaged in themselves. The problem with the argumentation is that these people’s alleged lifestyle is unlawful. Not only does God condemn it as an abominable crime, but so did our founding fathers. To mix rights with criminal activity is wrong; and while Patton is right about the ability to defend one’s self, she is not correct when it comes to engaging the behavior of sodomy, which she promotes.

DC is a “may issue” city, but of course, that sort of thinking is diametrically opposed to the Constitution’s protections in the Second Amendment.

“The District of Columbia cannot parcel out constitutional rights to a select few of its choosing,” plaintiffs’ attorney David Thompson said Tuesday. “That’s not how the Constitution works in this country.”

As for Mayor Muriel E. Bowser, her  spokesperson, Christina Harper said, “We believe our gun laws are constitutional and should be upheld.”

How any gun law is constitutional is beyond me.

The Washington Free Beacon reports that the city will request a stay on the ruling in addition to filing an appeal, according to D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine.

“We continue to believe our ‘good reason’ requirement for a concealed-carry permit is both constitutional and in line with similar laws in New Jersey, New York and Maryland – all of which have been upheld by federal appeals courts,” he said in a statement. “Just two months ago, another judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia declined to enjoin the District from enforcing the same requirement at issue in today’s ruling. We believe that the District’s gun laws are reasonable and necessary to ensure public safety in a dense urban area, and we will request a stay of this decision while we appeal.”

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.

Previous Post

Putin to Withdraw Russian Forces in Syria: “Objectives Achieved… Terrorists Have Been Forced Out”

Next Post

Brett Kavanaugh: A "Controlled Judge" Who Aided In Cover-up Of Vince Foster Case?

Next Post

Brett Kavanaugh: A "Controlled Judge" Who Aided In Cover-up Of Vince Foster Case?

About Freedom Outpost

The content of this site has been restored on a non-profit basis to preserve knowledge and serve as a historical archive. All articles were originally published on freedomoutpost.com and belong to their respective authors.

Freedom Outpost was an independent journal published to cover vital public policy issues and offer a public service.

Search in the archive

No Result
View All Result

Latest posts

  • Taking Sides: The Christian's Responsibility in Civic Affairs II
  • EgyptAir MS804 Flight Attendant posted Picture on Facebook of Plane crashing a year before She Died
  • Blue Angels Marine Pilot Capt. Jeff Kuss Could Have Ejected Once He Knew His Plane Was Going To Crash…But He Didn’t
  • Man Jailed After Claiming to be ‘Transgender’ to Assault Women in Shelter
  • Trump: Democrats Against North Korea Summit Just Like They Defend MS-13 & Attack Tax Cuts

InvestorTimes.com

InvestorTimes.com is a privately funded financial publication particularly created for professional and personal investors and intellectually restless individuals.

Our raison d'être is to provide insightful information to any citizen willing to understand global economical markets and the most relevant current affairs.

Contact us: info@investortimes.com

WE ARE LOOKING FOR TALENT

INVESTOR TIMES is always open to the incorporation of talent in its team of journalists and editors. If you would like to be part of our project as a collaborator, we invite you to submit your application.

Contact us: talent@investortimes.com

INTERNATIONAL EDITIONS

Investor Times en Français

Investor Times in Deutsch

Investor Times in Italiano

Investor Times em Português

Investor Times po Polsku

Investor Times на русском языке

El País Financiero (edición en Español)

DMCA.com Protection Status

  • ← Back to INVESTOR TIMES
  • Investing Articles
  • Financial Markets News
  • Tech News
  • Cryptocurrencies News

© INVESTOR TIMES

No Result
View All Result


About Freedom Outpost

The content of this site has been restored on a non-profit basis to preserve knowledge and serve as a historical archive. All articles were originally published on freedomoutpost.com and belong to their respective authors.

Freedom Outpost was an independent journal published to cover vital public policy issues and offer a public service.

© INVESTOR TIMES