[calvinmorrison]

Imagining getting indicted for having to bribe a local official to exercise an essential right, specifically listed in the Bill of Rights, and held up repeatedly in the courts (Hello DC v. Heller).

It's a situation where there are two classes, the haves and have nots. If you aren't politically connected in NJ, NY, CA, etc - good luck. If you exercise these rights, you will end up in a prison cell.

Even places like PA - a very gun friendly state - this is working its way through the courts for other reasons. For example, in Philadelphia they have closed the permitting office repeatedly for COVID, bystepping the law which requires them to issue a permit in 45 days, by simply not accepting applications.

That's America.

I can only hope the SCOTUS will take up new cases on this.

[throwawaygh]

> For example, in Philadelphia they have closed the permitting office repeatedly for COVID, bystepping the law which requires them to issue a permit in 45 days, by simply not accepting applications.

This was a HUGE deal in the PA gun community, and I simply cannot understand why.

1. PA extended the expiration date on existing permits that expired after February until Dec 31. It was only new permits requests where the delay actually effected anyone.

2. The delays weren't specific to guns. Government offices closed and then opened at reduced capacity. This also happened for DLs.

3. The remedy provided by the state was also not specific to guns. Again, e.g., expiring driver's licenses were extended.

4. The state's choice not to prioritize streamlining this paperwork was reasonable. It had huge budget shortfalls and more important things to worry about (acquiring/distributing PPE, acquiring/distributing respirators, high unemployment, evictions, running elections, finding overflow space for hospitals, moving schools to remote, figuring out how to safely open up service businesses/schools, and the list goes on...)

5. To the extent that streamlining paper work should have been a larger priority, given the severe stress on logistics networks, I'd imagine CDLs would be the place to spend those limited resources rather than CCW applications.

So, an unavoidable delay happened in LOTS of government processes -- only one of which was CCW issuance -- and the government provided uniform remediation to help partially mitigate the impact of delays in all of those processes.

No one was coming for anyone's guns.

TBH the foaming-at-the-mouth response to unavoidable reasonable delays in processing concealed carry permits during a public health emergency is the sort of thing that makes me (a gun owner) feel completely antagonistic toward the PA 2A advocacy community.

[calvinmorrison]

> I simply cannot understand why anyone gives a damn about this.

Because I currently cannot get a LCTF from the city. That's why I give a damn. It is currently effecting me. I had no need for that before corona virus, I do need one now.

Bucks county is issuing it in 15 minutes. Philly does a whole interview process which goes beyond a basic NICS check and they have chosen to be poorly staffed for a very long time.

Again, they set up a complicated process for applications, then shut it down, all of which is of their own (the cities) volition.

It's not reasonable delays. There are people who don't have their appointment until December, 2021. more than a year out.

Anyway, it's all really arguing something that should be moot - A persons right should not depend on the government service choosing to open its office.

[throwawaygh]

> Because I currently cannot get a LCTF from the city... I had no need for that before corona virus, I do need one now.

I'm not questioning that you really do need a LTCF, but with COVID and the protests and the election suddenly everyone "needs" a gun.

So there's reduced capacity + HUGE surge in demand + severe budget shortfalls. It's not a conspiracy. It's just queuing theory.

> Bucks county is issuing it in 15 minutes. Philly does a whole interview process which goes beyond a basic NICS check and they have chosen to be poorly staffed for a very long time.

Allegheny is far less onerous than Philly but also has long wait times.

Also, these super long wait times are a relatively recent development. I expect Sheriff's offices will do what they can to address the problem in the new FY.

> Anyway, it's all really arguing something that should be moot - A persons right should not depend on the government service choosing to open its office.

Again, priorities. Tell that to the people waiting in jail for far longer than constitutionally permissible for hearings because of delays in the courts. Should we reallocate cash from judicial processes to CCW processes and have those folks wait in jail an extra few months so that folks who got all jittery a few months before the election can forget to show up to their CCW appointments?

[calvinmorrison]

It's interesting, because with a financial incentive, stores have no problem running NICS checks in a few short minutes.

I am uninterested in the government itself creating onerous requirements to execute basic rights and then complaining when they can't manage it in a reasonable time.

And of course, the courts have ruled there is a reasonable amount of time, that's 45 days. It's been litigated.

[throwawaygh]

> with a financial incentive

I guess it doesn't need saying, but government offices have no such incentive. In fact, we don't want government offices to have such an incentive, and we even make it illegal to construct such an incentive in certain ways. See: the article.

> the courts have ruled there is a reasonable amount of time, that's 45 days. It's been litigated.

Courts don't control purse strings, and the remedy you're asking for here is pretty extreme given the circumstances.

[chipsa]

A right delayed is a right denied. And it's not just queues, apparently. It's the office is closed. The line isn't moving.

[throwawaygh]

The office was closed back in March when pretty much everything was closed. AFAIK it's been open for months, but there's an enormous backlog because the backlog + reduced capacity (need to do everything by appointment for social distancing and keep appointment slots large enough to ensure physical queues don't form) + increased demand.

People are queuing for hours to get COVID tests, hospitals are reaching capacity, and people are rotting in prison because they can't get an appointment in front of a judge. In normal times I would be more sympathetic. There are greater injustices than waiting a few months for your LTCF, and more important forms of justice (habeas corpus) being delayed.

[tshaddox]

I suspect the other commenter’s point is that they thing there should not be any procedural requirements whatsoever for concealed carry.

[agensaequivocum]

This is one reason why there should be no permitting, just unrestricted carry.

[rkt88edmo]

I'll throw out a few things , even though I don't know much about PA. In some places if your permit expires you are now a criminal and breaking the law, which may put your ability to own any firerms at risk, so staying in compliance is a huge deal. Also, lapses in permits may submit you to a whole new round of scrutiny when you reapply. Often, the fees we pay for these permits are meant to fund the work to issue them. It isn't uncommon for those fees to get diverted elsewhere, so now we paid for services we aren't receiving. These things have happened to firearms owners so we are hypersensitized to these issues.

[15155]

"Justice too long delayed is justice denied."

[tshaddox]

I don’t think the fact that something is an “essential right” implies that’s it’s okay to commit bribery or other crimes during the procedural steps to exercise that right. Presumably it ought to be illegal to bribe a government official to move your court date up, even though the right to a speedy trial is also protected by the bill of rights.

[t-writescode]

Given that major strides against Gun Control were originally performed by Ronald Reagan in California ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act ), I have trouble imagining a Conservative Supreme Court will take a textualist perspective on gun control laws, despite their political leaning and assumptions here.

edit: I can't spell :/

[da_big_ghey]

Yep, this is one of the best examples of the racism that underlies a large amount of gun control. For other examples, see the laws targeting Saturday-night specials, or even the army/navy laws in the Jim Crow south. Today we're seeing much of this repeated with increased paperwork requirements, taxes, and price increases. Regulatory requirements and ATF overreach decreases supply and helps move affordable firearms out of reach for many working-class or poor Americans. Many people are concerned by increased voting requirements preventing people from voting, but fail to understand that these regulations do the same for gun rights. Or maybe they do, and it's intentional.

Reagan did a whole lot worse than this. He signed the Hughes Amendment, which cut off the supply of new, civilian-transferrable machine guns. I just can't understand how anyone likes the guy in spite of the awful things he did to gun rights. The Republican party is only somewhat less awful for gun rights than the Democrats.

[rkt88edmo]

Similar tactics when it comes to voter's rights/vote suppression. This is where the brain breaking schism happens. Same tools used to restrict vitally important freedoms, but the political divide will rabidly endorse one but fight the other. They are all attacks on freedom and democracy.

[calvinmorrison]

Basically whataboutism at this point. The conceal carry movement has grown leaps and bounds since the 70's and DC v. Heller wasn't until 2008.

[t-writescode]

Less "whataboutism" and more "the ship for undoing (arguably) unconstitutional gun control laws has long, long sailed and we're never getting those rights back."

I suppose we _might_ get changes to the CCW laws; but, anything more complicated than that is never returning in the United States.

[mattlutze]

DC v. Heller specifically in the Decision text does not support or go against CCW laws or prohibitions, rather leaving those to the existing state and federal laws. It was a finding against a ban on private holding and keeping of firearms, and of keeping firearms in the home in a state easily fired.

[Rebelgecko]

Keep an eye on Young v Hawaii in the coming months. Should be interesting.

[rkt88edmo]

If you know that much, you know that Heller and McDonald do not address arms outside the home :)