search
top

DC Still Presses for More Time

The District of Columbia wanted to keep their ban on carry by law-abiding citizens. The court said no. Then, DC said they needed 180 days. The court said that 90 days was plenty. Despite the fact that the sky did not actually fall during the couple of days of lawful carry, DC is still spending their time begging the courts for more time to decide how they can most restrict individual rights.

6 Responses to “DC Still Presses for More Time”

  1. Peter O says:

    If they didn’t get it the first time, what makes them think they’ll get it now?

    • Anon says:

      Their approach appears to be exhaust remedies requested from the District Court, in order to request an emergency stay from the Appellate when done at the District.

      So they need to ask the District Court, again, because the judge said he’d consider such a request. They cannot just run to the Appellate Court, because they would not have exhausted all avenues of redress offered by the lower court. I mean, they could…but it’d be kinda dumb.

      So when/if the District Court says no, the city can then go to the higher court and say the lower court is not giving them the time they need. They will ask for an “emergency” stay.

  2. Greg says:

    If the court were to grant their request, do we think they would ever get to an actual proposed change, or simply continue to ask for “more time” perpetually?

    • Anon says:

      DC has not yet filed an appeal. They instead have opted for reconsideration motions, which effectively allow the lengthening of the time they have to file that appeal. They need the time to hedge their options, going forward.

      Some on the council are looking to NJ and MD for a May-Issue type system, while others seem to accept that Shall-Issue will be needed: the regulations must comply with the merits of the judge’s order, and nowhere can you read may-issue into it – for a few days the judge made DC Constitutional Carry for all non-DC residents.

      DC is buying time, and I think it’s because their actions will depend on the mid-term elections. Also, internally they are fractured. The Chief (no friend of the right) seems to have accepted that carry is coming to her city, and she’s just gonna have to get used to it. The council appears united in their annoyance at the issue, but somewhat fractured on how to handle it. The mayor – outside of platitudes – has done little to lead the issue.

      The Elephant In The Congress:

      And of course, being DC they must always look over their shoulder to the end of South Capitol Street. That big dome holds a body that has come close to stripping the city of it’s “home rule” provisions regarding guns, in the recent past. If the Senate goes red, the council must consider that a may-issue system – or any other restriction – might result in a complete refactor of DC law from Congress. This is a real issue for them and they get no protection from the White House. Most people do not understand the entire DC governance system is on loan from the Congress, and that the President has absolutely no power to veto or manage the governance of Washington, DC.

      The Constitution grants that power to Congress, exclusively:

      The Congress shall have Power To

      17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States…

      The Congress can – on its own – decide to erect a completely new governance model for the city, or to remove/modify elements of the current “home rule” system Congress allowed it in 1973, without Presidential veto or interference.

      So long story short, DC is between a rock and a hard place. If the Congress goes GOP (as seems likely but not guaranteed), anything they do is subject to a pretty decent chance that they will lose their ability to regulate guns, at all. Congress will write those rules (as was proposed in 2010 when in exchange for the relaxed gun regulation they would get an actual congressional seat). Those rules would be written by the GOP, with some assistance from the ever-helpful NRA (I assume).

      And Obama would be powerless to stop it.

      I think DC is trying to buy enough time to get past the Fall elections, and see how things turn out. The current order expires on 22 October, and realistically they won’t know the makeup of the Senate for a few more weeks. Their request for 180 days gives them the time to see that outcome, and possibly push for a MD-style system if Harry Reid stays in charge of the Senate.

      Enjoy thinking over this one. I hope this explains why they might be desperate to push this out beyond their current deadline. From their perspective, 180 days would be “just enough” to hedge their chances in all directions.

  3. Anon says:

    Hey, all. After reading my post above, consider that your vote in “hillbilly flyover country” could well change gun laws in DC.

    If you bitter clingers need a reason to get out and vote, then think that one over.

    ;)

  4. Anon says:

    Damn. Wish I had edit ability on the above.

    The President CAN veto laws Congress passes for DC, however he need not be consulted under the Home Rule Act of 1973.

    So depending on how Congress does it, they still have significant power over DC. A unified GOP Congress can still push its way, but it’d be a bit more work to avoid or counter the veto.

    Sorry about that.

top