This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-leaders-will-propose-concealed-carry-law-to-address-federal-judges-gun-ruling/2014/09/17/8ccf2636-3df6-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
D.C. leaders will propose ‘concealed carry’ law to address federal judge’s gun ruling D.C. leaders will propose ‘concealed carry’ law to address federal judge’s gun ruling
(about 11 hours later)
Within weeks, civilian gun owners could be free to apply to carry a concealed weapon in the nation’s capital for the first time in decades, after a federal judge’s ruling prompted city leaders to create new firearms law. D.C. gun owners could begin applying to carry concealed weapons within weeks under emergency legislation announced Wednesday in response to a federal judge’s ruling in July that the city’s firearms law was unconstitutional.
The proposed law, set to be unveiled at a Wednesday afternoon news conference, was drafted by city officials after the city’s long-standing ban on carrying firearms in public was declared unconstitutional in July. Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D), accompanied by public safety officials and D.C. Council leaders, remarked on the urgency of the situation at a news conference held to unveil the proposed regulations.
D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D), who played a lead role in developing the gun-carry proposal and spoke about it ahead of the news conference, said the emergency legislation put together in recent weeks will be scheduled for a council vote on Tuesday. “The court’s actions require a swift and unified response,” Gray said at the news conference, adding that the emergency legislation — which includes permit and testing requirements — would “ensure the continued safety” of District residents.
The bill, Mendelson said, will permit city residents who own duly registered handguns and non-residents who hold state carrying licenses to apply to the D.C. police for a concealed carry permit. So-called open carry, such as the wearing of a weapon in a holster, will not be allowed under the proposed law, he said. The council is scheduled to vote on the legislation next week, said the council chairman, Phil Mendelson (D).
D.C. carry permits will be issued on a “may carry” basis, giving great discretion to D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier on who will be allowed to carry firearms in the city. Applicants will have to state a reason for seeking a permit, Mendelson said. The bill, modeled on laws enacted in New York, New Jersey and Maryland, will allow District residents who own registered handguns and nonresidents who have state-issued gun-carrying licenses to apply to D.C. police for permits.
“The concept behind it is the absolute, complete prohibition probably cannot sustain judicial review, so we’re focusing on the individual,” Mendelson said. “What we want to do is minimize the indicators that a person might have a mental illness or history of violence or a criminal record.” Another goal, he added, is to “have a scheme that is relatively simple and can be understood.” The wearing of a holstered weapon in public view would not be allowed under the proposed law, Mendelson said.
The draft law, which was crafted in consultation with Lanier and D.C. Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan, includes some property restrictions, including prohibitions on carrying gun inside government buildings, schools, day-care facilities, taverns or on public transportation, Mendelson said. Federal law already prohibits the carrying of weapons on most federal property. D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier would issue permits to carry weapons under the new regulations, and applicants would have to demonstrate that they require a firearm because of a specific danger.
The proposed law also includes a provision establishing a 1,000-foot zone around the movement of dignitaries, such as presidential motorcades, and certain large-scale events where gun carrying would be prohibited. To be arrested and charged under that provision, however, a licensed gun owner would have to be given notice of the law by an officer and subsequently fail to leave the no-carry zone. Applicants who are denied licenses could appeal the chief’’s decision to a five-member review board appointed by the mayor.
The new law is being proposed after years of litigation that have targeted the city’s relatively strict gun laws. From the 1970s through 2008, the city banned the private ownership of handguns, except by law enforcement, and after the Supreme Court established a constitutional right to keep a handgun in the home, gun-rights advocates have taken aim at the city’s ban on carrying those arms in public. “We cannot eliminate guns,” Mendelson said at the news conference. “We can eliminate the risk that the person will misuse the gun.”
U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr.’s ruling striking down the city’s carry ban is under a 90-day stay granted to give officials time to rewrite the law, and the city has asked Scullin to reconsider his decision. The plaintiffs in the case, who include gun owners living and working in the city, have opposed a longer stay, as well as the request for reconsideration. In an earlier interview, Mendelson said prohibiting guns “probably cannot sustain judicial review, so we’re focusing on the individual.”
Should the emergency bill pass Tuesday, it would take effect immediately upon Mayor Vincent C. Gray’s signature for 90 days. The police department would then have to issue regulations governing the permit process, which would take additional time, Mendelson said, but permit applications could start being accepted within months. “What we want to do is minimize the indicators that a person might have a mental illness or history of violence or a criminal record,” he said. Another goal, he said, is to “have a scheme that is relatively simple and can be understood.”
The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Alan Gura, said last month that there could be further litigation if the city chooses to pursue onerous requirements to secure a carry permit — including broad geographic limitations. The legislation was drafted in consultation with Lanier and D.C. Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan, both of whom attended the news conference.
Mendelson said he would not be surprised if the matter continues to play out in the courts. “The Second Amendment has become a heavily litigated issue, and because of that I expect there will be further litigation,” he said, adding that they were “trying to find the right balance” between the public’s rights and public safety needs. The legislation would prohibit the carrying of guns on public transportation and in government buildings, schools, day-care facilities and taverns. Federal law already prohibits the carrying of weapons on most federal property.
The proposal would establish a 1,000-foot no-carry zone around events involving the movement of dignitaries, such as presidential motorcades, and some other large-scale events. To be arrested and charged under that provision, however, a licensed gun owner would have to be given notice of the law by an officer and subsequently fail to leave the no-carry zone.
The legislation would reinstate a test for carrying a gun that existed for many years under a law Congress approved in 1931. That law allowed the District’s police chief to issue a license if the applicant had “good reason to fear injury” and was a “suitable person” to be licensed.
Under the bill’s provisions, applicants could not have suffered a mental illness — or any other condition that might make them a risk — for at least five years before seeking the licence.
The new law is being proposed after years of litigation targeting the city’s relatively strict gun laws.
From the 1970s through 2008, the city banned the private ownership of handguns, except by law enforcement officers. After the Supreme Court established a constitutional right to keep a handgun in the home, gun rights advocates took aim at the city’s ban on carrying handguns in public.
U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr.’s ruling striking down the city’s carry ban is under a 90-day stay, granted to give officials time to rewrite the law, and the city has asked Scullin to reconsider his decision. The plaintiffs in the case, who include gun owners living and working in the city, have opposed a longer stay and the request for reconsideration.
On Wednesday, Scullin said he would hear arguments Oct. 17 on whether to reconsider his ruling or extend the stay.
Nathan, who has said the District is considering appealing Scullin’s decision, declared that the legislation would “pass constitutional muster.”
Should the emergency bill pass Tuesday, it would become effective for 90 days immediately upon Gray’s signature. The police department would then have to issue regulations governing the permit process, which would take additional time, Mendelson said, but permit applications could start being accepted within weeks.
The plaintiffs’ attorney, Alan Gura, said last month that there could be further litigation if the city tries to make it too difficult to obtain a carry permit or tries to impose broad geographic limitations on carrying concealed weapons.
Mendelson said he would not be surprised if the matter continues to play out in the courts. “The Second Amendment has become a heavily litigated issue, and because of that, I expect there will be further litigation,” he said. He added that city officials are “trying to find the right balance” between the public’s rights and public safety needs.
Gray, citing the one-year anniversary of the Washington Navy Yard rampage, in which 12 people were killed, made it clear that he is not pleased with having to set new regulations.
“I happen to be one who does not support people walking around with guns — concealed or otherwise,” he said. But he also said the District had to abide by the law.