Just found out about this, some very interesting language was used, now that I have been alerted to how definitions of words are often used to mean things that would not be immediately apparent in everyday common language usage:


_____________________________________________________________________
"In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny.

Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms. 4

Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District."
_______________________________________________________________________

http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DCT_OPINION.pdf



After reading "The Greatest Story Never Told" (for the first webinar in the PTE course), the term "non-residents" may have a very interesting meaning I would not have thought of before.

Also, it would appear that they are letting a certain cat out of the bag, since they have ruled the following (excerpt copied from above):

"Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms."


It sounds like they are saying it is lawful RIGHT NOW to carry a firearm in D.C., even though there is no "licensing mechanism" currently in place.

And if it is lawful to carry a firearm NOW without a license, then it must also be lawful to carry a firearm LATER without a license, even if they establish a "licensing system".

They cannot require a "license" or a "permission slip" from the State to exercise the Constitutional RIGHT to bear arms, just as they cannot require a "license" to exercise any other Constitutional Right.

But they can sure try real hard to trick, deceive or coerce us into consenting unto their licensing system.

At least that is my current understanding, I realize that my level of knowledge in these matters is much less than most everyone else here. I'm working on it.


And I am always grateful for correction!

You've got it. For a full study of this scenario, jump into the Right To Travel course. We use the right to travel as a proxy for all rights (versus the privilege of a license) and go deep into the understanding. The principles are the same, no matter which rights we're talking about.

Great breakdown of the meaning of this ruling. Unalienable rights and inalienable rights exist antecedent to any form of licensing and will still exist after any form of licensing is implemented upon the residents of D.C. or elsewhere. Thanks Scott!

Siobhan
aka Humanity Transcending

The first thing I thought of when I read this was drivers license. They'll call it something that sounds like a generalization and make the public think it covers all forms of fire-arms and get people to apply. Then deny them for all sorts of reasons, take their PRIVILAGE away, collect all sorts of revenue and tax it to the point that it won't even seem worth it. Start charging huge fines to dealers till they can't sell and restrict ammunition to the point of extinction.

Like they've already said, the constitution was talking of flint-locks and lead shot. It was talking about hunting not protection... blah blah

ncogneto_01 wrote:

All the more reason to learn how to LAWFULLY carry a concealed firearm without registration or license, along the same lines as traveling by car without a "driver's license" as taught in the "Right to Travel" webinar (which I have not watched yet, but it is the course I am most eager to take).

Unlike "operating a motor vehicle without a license" however, if you do it wrong without understanding how to properly assert your Right, the penalty for carrying a concealed firearm without a "license" (except in Washington D.C. for the last couple days, before the temporary stay was granted) is almost certainly much more severe than driving without a "license", so a very solid and thorough understanding of the Law would be necessary before exercising that particular Constitutional Right.