Latest News
home Gun Rights, News JUST IN: Federal Court Issues MAJOR Ruling On Second Amendment

JUST IN: Federal Court Issues MAJOR Ruling On Second Amendment

If you enjoyed this story, make sure you share it with others by clicking the icons below!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestTumblrRedditShare

The fight against our gun rights is ongoing, however, the anti-Second Amendment crowd suffered a major setback on Tuesday after a federal court issued a ruling that has gun owners cheering.

A federal appeals court ruled on the side of common sense when it said no more to Washington, D.C.’s “good reason” rule regarding concealed carry permits. The law required potential recipients of the permits to have a compelling reason, in the eyes of leftist bureaucrats, to carry a concealed weapon, but now the law is no more.

From Fox News:

A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a District of Columbia gun-control measure that the court said is essentially an outright ban of the Second Amendment.

D.C. requires gun owners to have a “good reason” to obtain a concealed carry permit.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the regulation as too restrictive in a 2-1 decision, The Washington Post reported.

“The good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on most D.C. residents’ right to carry a gun in the face of ordinary self-defense needs,” Judge Thomas B. Griffith wrote, according to the paper.

Sorry, but you shouldn’t have to have a “good reason” to defend your life. Thankfully, the courts see it the same way.

The Washington Times has more:

In rejecting the city’s law, the court ruled that while the Second Amendment allows for some limits on gun possession, it does not allow for “bans on carrying in urban areas like D.C. or bans on carrying absent a special need for self-defense.”

“In fact, the Amendment’s core at a minimum shields the typically situated citizen’s ability to carry common arms generally,” wrote Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith in the majority opinion. “The District’s good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. That’s enough to sink this law under Heller I.”

Judge Griffith was joined by Circuit Judge Stephen F. Williams in the opinion.
Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented, writing that city lawmakers had identified two important government goals that were supported by the law: “the prevention of crime and the promotion of public safety.”

Finally, common sense is actually prevailing in the courts. Perhaps the left is incapable of reading, but the Constitution clearly states “shall not be infringed,” which means exactly that and passing a law infringing upon our rights is diametrically opposed to the Second Amendment.

 

Comments

comments

You Might Also Like

Top