The present suit involves challenges to three separate District firearm restrictions. The first requires a license from the District's Chief of Police in order to carry a "pistol," i.e., a handgun, anywhere in the District. See D. C. Code 22-4504(a) (2001); see also 22-4501(a), 22-4506. Because the District assures us that respondent could obtain such a license so long as he meets the statutory eligibility criteria, and because respondent concedes that those criteria are facially constitutional, I, like the majority, see no need to address the constitutionality of the licensing requirement. See ante, at 58-59.@darkjedilink can you share your source of info for why you think this ruling did the opposite of what it did?
---
He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.