KIRSTERS BAISH| In recent years we have seen our rights as Americans slowly but surely taken away from us. The Left has been trying to take away our guns and leave us unprotected. Well, we have some great news for you. Our country’s most powerful appeals court has finally taken our side, ruling in an extremely important concealed carry case which might mean the right to carry a gun could go before the Supreme Court!

Fox News reported that the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 that Washington D.C.’s concealed carry restrictions were indeed unconstitutional. Just when it seemed like our Constitution was falling by the wayside we are given a glimmer of hope again.

D.C. has a specific statute stating that concealed carriers are required to show “good reason” to carry said weapon. Reason Magazine reported that the “good reason” is required to show “special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks that demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life.”

Why is it that Americans have to prove that they need to carry a weapon? There is eminent danger in our world every single day. Protecting ourselves is a God-given right, not a manmade law.

During the case of Wrenn v. District of Columbia, a 2-1 ruling came back, in which the court decided against the regulation. The decision was based on another Second Amendment case from the same district, D.C. v. Heller. During this case the Supreme Court decided that the district’s complete ban on firearms was in direct violation of our Constitution.

Judge Thomas Griffith gave his opinion for the majority. He stated that “listening closely to Heller I reveals this much at least: the Second Amendment erects some absolute barriers that no gun law may breach.”

Judge Griffith went on, “reading the Amendment, applying Heller I’s reasoning, and crediting key early sources, we conclude: the individual right to carry common firearms beyond the home for self-defense — even in densely populated areas, even for those lacking special self-defense needs — falls within the core of the Second Amendment’s protections.”

Griffith wrote, “we are bound to leave the District as much space to regulate as the Constitution allows — but no more. Just so, our opinion does little more than trace the boundaries laid in 1971 and flagged in Heller I. And the resulting decision rests on a rule so narrow that good-reason laws seem almost uniquely designed to defy it: that the law-abiding citizen’s right to bear common arms must enable the typical citizen to carry a gun.”

Judge Karen Henderson stated that the law “passes muster.” In her opinion, the laws of Washington differ from those of other states due to specific security issues, as it is the nation’s capitol. She explained that she might feel differently about the same law in other states.

That may not be such a good thing for those who advocate harsher gun control. This one decision makes it much more likely that concealed carry rights under our country’s Constitution will make it to the Supreme Court, especially since the court recently refused to hear a very similar case that involved California law. Politico explains that during the other case Edward Peruta was denied a concealed carry because of the mandate in California claiming that one must show “good cause.”  During this case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals made their ruling against Peruta. Only two of the justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, had interest in the matter.

As of right now, Second Amendment supporters in D.C. are hopeful that things will end up working in their favor. Fox News spoke with John R. Lott Jr., member of the Crime Prevention Research Center. He explained that only 124 concealed carry holders exist in Washington D.C. at the moment.

Lott explained, “If D.C. were like the 42 right-to-carry states, they would have about 48,000 permits. Right now D.C. prevents the most vulnerable people, particularly poor blacks who live in high crime areas of D.C., from having any hope of getting a permit for protection.”

Let’s hope this case goes before the Supreme Court, and the courts make the right choice to uphold our nation’s Constitution.