Discretionary Concealed Carry Permit
Systems Value Money Over Lives
By Kurt Hofmann, May 27th 2015
JPFO writer contributor, © 2015.
Frederick J. Scullin
A week ago Monday, U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin ruled that Washington DC's extremely restrictive "may issue" concealed carry permitting system, in which the applicant must demonstrate a "good reason" to need to carry a defensive firearm, is a violation of the Second Amendment. Judge Scullin correctly points out that this requirement immediately disqualifies the vast majority of people from exercising a right that the Constitution itself declares shall not be infringed. From the ruling:
The District of Columbia's arbitrary "good reason"/"proper reason" requirement goes far beyond establishing such reasonable restrictions. Rather, for all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
It was Judge Scullin, readers may remember, who last July ruled that DC's previous concealed carry (or open carry, for that matter) policy, "no issue," was unconstitutional, prompting DC to hastily set up the current system, which Scullin now says they may not enforce. Basically, Scullin is saying that going from utterly impossible for anyone to legally carry a defensive firearm, to utterly impossible for "only" the vast majority of people, isn't good enough.
The requirement for a "good reason" to carry a firearm would not be so utterly evil, except for one appalling thing: defense of one's life and loved ones isn't a sufficiently "good reason" to these ghouls. Just about everyone who wants to carry a firearm has the excellent reason 
of self-preservation, but the District officials don't think that's good enough. Nope--you have to prove, to their satisfaction, that there is a specific threat to your life, as if murder victims always know that someone is after them.
And when I say "specific threat," I mean very specific. Scullin's ruling cited part of the relevant law:
The fact that a person resides in or is employed in a high crime area shall not by itself establish a good reason to fear injury to person or property for the issuance of a concealed carry license.
So living and working in a cesspit of violent crime isn't a good enough reason to allow people access to an effective means of self-defense. So what is good enough?
Employment of a type that requires the handling of large amounts of cash or other highly valuable objects that must be transported upon the applicant's person
In other words, if you merely want to protect your life, because you live and/or work in a dangerous area, you're out of luck. Carrying lots of money? Well why didn't you say so?! You've gotta protect that money!
This reflects a sick, twisted, and depraved set of values. The gun ban zealots claim to value each and every human life above all other things, but this policy, and others like it elsewhere, show the real truth. To these people, one's value can be deduced from one's bank statement. This scrofulous outlook must be utterly rejected by all people of decency, and Judge Scullin's ruling is a good step in the right direction.
A former paratrooper, Kurt Hofmann was paralyzed in a car accident in 2002. The helplessness inherent to confinement to a wheelchair prompted him to explore armed self-defense, only to discover that Illinois denies that right, inspiring him to become active in gun rights advocacy. He also writes the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column. Kurt Hofmann Archive.
