DC Council Approves Permanent Version Of Concealed Carry Bill :: 12/18/2014

The D.C. Council today approved a permanent version of a concealed carry bill that designates where handguns can be carried in public by licensed owners.

The bill was approved by all Councilmembers except for David Grosso who voted "no."

"I am not comfortable voting for a bill that perpetuates the gun violence that has been such a rampant part of my city for too long," he said through his spokesperson. "I disagree with the court's interpretation of the second amendment, and I also cannot go along with the continued Congressional interference into our city."

While the legislation codifies a tweaked version of an emergency bill passed earlier this year in response to a July court ruling, the fight over concealed carry is far from over. D.C. is appealing a ruling that determined the city's complete ban on public carry to be illegal and is also being sued to stop implementation of the law.

While D.C. argues that, with the law and regulations put in place by the Metropolitan Police Department, it has complied with Judge Frederick Scullin's ruling, the plaintiffs say otherwise.

"If the Court finds that the 'new' law does not effectively change the enjoined practice (an issue that the parties have briefed before), defendants’ current enforcement conduct constitutes contempt," an attorney for the plaintiffs argued in a December 11 memo. "After all, whatever the scope of the Court’s equitable powers—another matter of significant dispute between the parties—surely, the Court can require that the City not re-enact and enforce the same law. Respectfully, this is all that Defendants have essentially done, and it suffices to support a finding of contempt."

At issue is the restrictive licensing regulations put in place by the city, which requires a licensed handgun owner to show a legitimate need to carry in public to obtain a permit. The plaintiffs argue that Scullin did not determine D.C. could enact "any licensing scheme," only "one that is constitutional."

"The obvious logic of this order is that some licensing schemes will not remedy the violation found by the Court that merited the injunction in the first place."

Plaintiffs Response To D.C.'s Response Re: Contempt Motion

http://dcist.com/2014/12/council_approves_permanent_version.php