Major Civil Rights Victories

Maybe I should get too busy to blog more often if we’re going to have a rash of good news. I’ll probably take a bit more time in the car to look over the details, but I’m very happy to announce we scored a major court victory over Washington DC in regards to issuance of concealed carry permits. Remember that DC’s prohibition regime was thrown out by another case, and in they immediately implemented a weak may-issue regime modeled after New Jersey, Maryland and New York City. The judge tossed that, as he should have. Key findings in the decision:

1. The Second Amendment’s applicability is not limited to the home.
2. Defendants [DC] are unlikely to demonstrate an unrequited presumption of constitutionality for the District’s “good reason” requirement.
3. The district’s concealed carry scheme is likely unconstitutional.
4. Strict scrutiny is likely the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny.
   1. The District’s “good reason” requirement burdens core Second Amendment conduct.
   2. The District’s “good reason” requirement imposes a substantial burden on core Second Amendment conduct.
5. Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief.
6. The balance of equities and the public interest also with in Plantiff’s favor.
7. Issuing a permanent injunction would be imprudent.

You’ll note from the case that the Judge has granted a preliminary injunction, rather than a permanent one, so there will still be a trial, but this is very good news, and indicates the case will be tried by a judge who takes this stuff seriously. This is about as good a result as we could hope for.

The second victory is out in California, in the case of Teixeira v. County of Alameda in the Ninth Circuit. This is a three judge panel. This case is interesting because it will have direct bearing on the Nova Armory situation. Here the antis tried all their usual tricks: no gun stores within 500 feet of residential areas, schools, parks, etc. From the case:

The government can’t satisfy this scrutiny simply on the assertion that “gun stores act as magnets for crime.” “Indeed, Teixeira took pains to remind the court that ‘all employees working at a gun store, and all clients/customers are required to be law-abiding citizens.’” Therefore, the case must be remanded to the district court. And on remand, the district court must require “at least some evidentiary showing that gun stores increase crime around their locations” and must require some “explanation as to how a gun store might negatively impact the aesthetics of a neighborhood” (if the government continues to rely on a community aesthetics rationale for its zoning rule).

Of course, they can’t show gun stores drive crime rates. That was just a bullshit excuse to ban gun stores from opening. Now, certainly they do care about the wrong kind of people coming into their community, but you, dear readers, are that wrong kind of person.

It’s a good thing when the courts make them back up their assertions, because they honestly can’t.