The right to self-preservation is more than a constitutional right; it’s a human right. All animals are afforded some level of defense. Rabbits have great hearing and can evade quickly. Dogs have sharp teeth with which to bite. All animals possess a certain instinct. Trap them into a corner and mean them harm and they will bite and claw.
Mankind was given the gift of intelligence. We began using tools and while our nails are not sharp and our teeth aren’t for biting, we have developed fantastic tools like the Glock 22 or the always-reliable Smith & Wesson revolver.
Prohibiting people from using these kinds of tools to prevent harm to themselves or their families is not just bad policy, but it is downright immoral.
That is what Washington, D.C., has been up to in recent years since they were dragged kicking and screaming into the age of enlightenment. The nation’s capital, for decades, maintained the strictest anti-Second Amendment laws in the nation- even during times in which the city became infested with violent crime that should have been prevented by banning firearms (according to liberal logic).
Since the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right, the city was forced to evolve somewhat.
Like how segregationists tried new tricks to try and keep from complying with integration mandates from the Supreme Court, D.C. officials tried little tricks. One such trick was to allow concealed carry permits, but require that citizens take certification classes from a D.C.-licensed instructor. The catch was that D.C. refused to license instructors, allowing the people to technically be allowed to obtain a concealed carry permit, but preventing them from ever obtaining one.
D.C. ultimately had to relent and grudgingly license instructors.
On Tuesday, a federal court struck another devastating blow to Washington, D.C.’s anti-Second Amendment provisions by ruling that the “good cause” requirement for concealed carry permits was unconstitutional.
The nation’s capital has maintained an absurd requirement for obtaining concealed carry permits. Applicants must demonstrate a “good cause” for wishing to obtain the right to utilize their Second Amendment rights in public.
What this, in essence, accomplished was it allowed law enforcement to arbitrarily and routinely deny applications for concealed carry permits by insisting that those applying did not show a good enough reason to wish to obtain one.
Evidently, the “sweet spot” for Second Amendment protections in D.C. is when one is just on the verge of getting murdered, but one who has not yet been murdered.
District Judge Richard Leon cited the Heller Supreme Court decision in his ruling that struck-down the “good cause” clause.
“In Heller, the Supreme Court unequivocally asserted that ‘the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,’” Leon wrote in the ruling. “The District’s understandable, but overly zealous, 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.”
“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.”
The case is likely not over as D.C. officials likely will not relinquish their grip on the Second Amendment any time soon and will likely appeal the decision. However, the Supreme Court is unlikely to hear the case as the lower court’s ruling appears directly in-line with the Heller precedent.
If the court establishes this precedent that an arbitrary cause is needed to secure a concealed carry permit, it may be possible that in the near future, we may see an eradication of provisions that require justification for one to exercise their Second Amendment rights and thus, we may see an end to “may issue” permitting.