Washington D.C. Issues Grand Total of 8 CC Permits
For years, it was entirely against the law to carry a handgun in the nation’s capital. In the home of the U.S. Constitution, the right to bear arms was flagrantly stolen from the citizens of Washington D.C. That changed last September, when, under federal order, the District was forced to change the law. They would begin issuing concealed carry permits. As we begin to see the effects of this law, it is becoming clear that the city is still in violation of the Second Amendment.
Instead of doing the right thing and enacting a “shall issue” policy, the D.C. City Council opted for a restrictive May-Issue policy. Applicants had to prove their need for a handgun in order to get the license. According to officials, simply living or working in a bad neighborhood was not sufficient. Applicants would have to prove a specific threat in order to qualify. Predictably, this policy has resulted in very few licenses being issued. Out of 69 applications, the city has thus far only approved 8 of them. Eight D.C. residents will now be able to carry a concealed weapon. And they believe this satisfies the federal ruling?
11 people have been denied a permit thus far, and the rest are still waiting to see the outcome. City officials such as Council Chairman Phil Mendelson are far from being ashamed of the low numbers. To the contrary, they are beaming with pride. Mendelson, a Democrat, boasts that the city has developed a permit-application process that is among the most restrictive in the United States. “The law was designed to weed out those who don’t have a need to carry.”
Alan Gura, the lawyer who has represented challenges to D.C.’s gun ban, said that the miniscule number of applicants proves that “the process is not constitutional.” In response, Councilman Mendelson said, “He must be thinking that everybody should be able to carry a firearm.”
Hmm, why would he think that? What could possibly lead someone to think that “everybody should be able to carry a firearm?”
Among the restrictions the city has placed on getting a license are a $110 application fee, 18 hours of training, and the aforementioned “need.” Applicants must prove that their lives would be specifically imperiled in order the qualify. With these restrictions in place, it’s actually surprising that they could even find 8 people to qualify for a license.
Washington D.C.’s new mayor, Muriel Bowser, has proclaimed herself a proud member of the anti-gun establishment. “You have a mayor who hates guns,” she told a crowd of supporters earlier this month. “If it was up to me, we wouldn’t have any handguns in the District of Columbia. I swear to protect the Constitution and what the courts say, but I will do it in the most restrictive way possible.”
Ah, doesn’t that just ring with the freedom Americans treasure? I’ll follow the Constitution, but I’m gonna hate every second of it. That’s what we want in our politicians, right? Imagine if she got up there and said that about the First Amendment? “I’ll protect free speech, but only in the most restrictive way possible.” There would be rioting. But since the left has managed to infect the country with anti-gun lies, Bowser’s comments are actually mainstream.
Gura insists that he will continue to challenge the D.C. gun laws in court. One can only hope that federal courts realize that the Constitution is not a document around which politicians should be trying to find every loophole possible. It’s there for a reason: to protect our rights from fascists like Bowser and Mendelson.