Palmer v. D.C.

[KeeFus]

Looks like the residents of D.C. just landed another victory.

"In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which
this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia's total ban on the public carrying of readyto-
use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny. Therefore, the
Court finds that the District of Columbia's complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is
unconstitutional."

http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DCT_OPINION.pdf

[will_1400]

Working the body, moving the ball a few yards at a time, whichever metaphor you want to use, we're making progress bit by bit. We need to keep it up.

[Drang]

Not surprised that Alan Gura won another one.

The part that astonishes me is that DC now has Constitutional Carry -- including non-residents! -- until they can come up with something else.

[Stephen]

he Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Possibly a dumb question, but does that make DC constitutional carry for the time being?

[Drang]

Yes.
..

[LorenzoS]

I wonder how this might be a step toward eliminating May (not) Issue in states like NJ and cities like NYC. If there exists a right to carry outside the home, there is no possible defense of NJ's scheme where there is technically a possibility to get a carry permit but in practice it simply does not exist for the majority.

[LHS]

It's theoretically Constitutional Carry up until DC gets a stay and appeal. They'll fight this tooth and nail, and they'll likely point to some of the circuit court rulings that 'may issue' is theoretically constitutional, and then they'll never issue a permit, a la Hawaii.

[Sensei]

Not surprised that Alan Gura won another one.

The part that astonishes me is that DC now has Constitutional Carry -- including non-residents! -- until they can come up with something else.


Yes.
..

I'm not a lawyer. However, my instincts are telling me NOT to test this theory. I'm betting that if you show a DC cop your new, unloaded VP9 in your trunk, you will be immediately arrested. You will also probably get booked and spend at least 1 night in jail. You will then spend untold thousands in legal fees pleading your case.

If it were truly safe to Constitutionally Carry in DC, I suspect that you would already see THOUSANDS of people flocking from conservative areas of VA and MD to rally and rejoice in Lafayette Square with their pistols - something that would make the Secret Service bust an aneurysm.

[Tamara]

Working the body, moving the ball a few yards at a time, whichever metaphor you want to use, we're making progress bit by bit. We need to keep it up.

Three yards and a cloud of dust. :D

[will_1400]

Three yards and a cloud of dust. :D

Beats missing a field goal for the other team to run back for a game-winning TD at the end of a game. (Something you'd only see in SEC football as the rest of the country is smart enough to not make a kicker try for a field goal at a much longer distance than ones he'd already consistently missed in a critical game-changing situation... :p)

Seriously, though, even incremental progress is still progress. We should relish the small victories as we do the big ones while not getting complacent.

[Drang]

I'm not a lawyer. However, my instincts are telling me NOT to test this theory. I'm betting that if you show a DC cop your new, unloaded VP9 in your trunk, you will be immediately arrested. You will also probably get booked and spend at least 1 night in jail. You will then spend untold thousands in legal fees pleading your case.

If it were truly safe to Constitutionally Carry in DC, I suspect that you would already see THOUSANDS of people flocking from conservative areas of VA and MD to rally and rejoice in Lafayette Square with their pistols - something that would make the Secret Service bust an aneurysm.

The opinion was issued this afternoon, so the lack of mobs of Constitutional Carry activists seems understandable. (That said, I am neither volunteering to be a test case, nor calling for volunteers.)

Still, recognizing that the DC .gov, and DC police, will likly try and resist, the decision itself sure lends itself to the ConCarry interpretation:

n light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny. Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.4 Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District.

[Tamara]

Beats missing a field goal for the other team to run back for a game-winning TD at the end of a game. (Something you'd only see in SEC football as the rest of the country is smart enough to not make a kicker try for a field goal at a much longer distance than ones he'd already consistently missed in a critical game-changing situation... :p)

Seriously, though, even incremental progress is still progress. We should relish the small victories as we do the big ones while not getting complacent.

Perhaps my quote was too old. It is not meant to be derogatory. Remember: "Only three things can happen when you pass the ball, and two of them are bad. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Hayes#Ohio_State)" :D

[LHS]

Seriously, though, even incremental progress is still progress. We should relish the small victories as we do the big ones while not getting complacent.

I'm of the opinion that slow, methodical, incremental progress is the best kind. If we go too far too fast, it's liable to cause a backlash from the fence-sitters. We lost our rights a bit at a time. They took some, let it become 'normal', then took some more, and it was all like a frog being slowly boiled alive in a pot. That strategy worked until they tried for too much in '94 and it backfired. We should learn from their mistakes, adopt the best parts of their strategy, and use it against them.

[bossfrog]

Saw this first thing today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/federal-judge-overturns-dc-handgun-ban/2014/07/26/906bc366-1534-11e4-98ee-daea85133bc9_story.html

[trailrunner]

I live across the water from DC. I'm seeing my daughter for our quarterly dinner next month (about the only time I go into DC). Would be nice to be able to legally carry while I'm there.

I suspect that whatever permit process DC comes up would make Rube Goldberg proud, and will actually granted to five people, three of which will be from Congress. Their process to get a gun is a model of byzantine bureaucracy.

[BWT]

Was the NRA involved at all?

[JV_]

Don't know, but I thought this was a SAF case.

[Tamara]

Looking forward to the editorials and comments sections at HuffPo...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FlQovAQ44Oo/U9UgvUfa5QI/AAAAAAAAGrs/hXkzbtilBK8/s1600/mug+o+tears.jpg

[cclaxton]

Woo Hoo!!
Applies to Non-Residents too.

Hey, they just legalized pot....things are changing in DC...My guess is they will set up a Concealed Carry permitting process for residents and non-residents, and will ask for a Stay until they can complete the new rules.

That is still fantastic progress.
Cody

[Stephen]

Looking forward to the editorials and comments sections at HuffPo...

http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/nhpr/files/201404/tumblr_m067y75GXP1rnn734o1_500.jpg
Blood in the streets! Shootouts over parking spaces!

This whole concealed carry thing has to be an extremely bitter pill for these kittenholes to swallow. Not only have they thoroughly lost the battle in government, its going mainstream beyond their worst nightmares. In my state, over 10% of Pennsylvanians over the age of 21 have a LTCF. And its climbing significantly every year. With the kind of support CCW has from the electorate, the ball is only going to keep rolling. All we need now is for SCOTUS to help our brothers in the flaming blue states before one of the Heller majority start having health issues.

[Jeep]

The opinion was issued this afternoon, so the lack of mobs of Constitutional Carry activists seems understandable. (That said, I am neither volunteering to be a test case, nor calling for volunteers.)

Still, recognizing that the DC .gov, and DC police, will likly try and resist, the decision itself sure lends itself to the ConCarry interpretation:


Drang: There is no question that the decision enjoins the DC police from preventing a non-resident from carrying is DC. However, keep this in mind. It took something like 6 years to get this decided. 6 years while two judges just sat on it until it had to be decided.

I'm not sure how long it would take the federal courts to free you after you are arrested for carrying in DC--probably not 6 years, but it could be many months. You'll "win" in the end, but DC's prison's are notoriously bad and notoriously unsafe.

There is, I think, around zero percent chance that the DC politicians will allow the DC cops to obey this decision, so I would recommend continuing to avoid DC for a while. Besides, Obama has recently remade the DC Circuit with some of the most left-wing judges ever nominated, and they are the ones who will hear the appeal of this decision. Don't be surprised if they reverse this decision on the grounds that guns are yucky and that women and children suffer when the 2nd amendment is honored. The Third Circuit recently upheld New Jersey's policy of only granting carry licenses to close relatives of politicians and made men in the mob (very often the same people) pretty much on the grounds that guns are yucky and that New Jersey has been violating the Constitution for so long that its now okay.

[cclaxton]

Drang: There is no question that the decision enjoins the DC police from preventing a non-resident from carrying is DC. However, keep this in mind. It took something like 6 years to get this decided. 6 years while two judges just sat on it until it had to be decided.

I'm not sure how long it would take the federal courts to free you after you are arrested for carrying in DC--probably not 6 years, but it could be many months. You'll "win" in the end, but DC's prison's are notoriously bad and notoriously unsafe.

There is, I think, around zero percent chance that the DC politicians will allow the DC cops to obey this decision, so I would recommend continuing to avoid DC for a while. Besides, Obama has recently remade the DC Circuit with some of the most left-wing judges ever nominated, and they are the ones who will hear the appeal of this decision. Don't be surprised if they reverse this decision on the grounds that guns are yucky and that women and children suffer when the 2nd amendment is honored. The Third Circuit recently upheld New Jersey's policy of only granting carry licenses to close relatives of politicians and made men in the mob (very often the same people) pretty much on the grounds that guns are yucky and that New Jersey has been violating the Constitution for so long that its now okay.

There is no assurance that Obama-appointed judges will rule against gun rights or in favor of stricter gun control. This is proven by Republican appointees who have many, many times ruled against conservative policies and against gun rights. It's important to remember there are a lot of Democrats who support gun rights, especially at the State and local levels. And, there are some Republicans who favor more gun restrictions. Making this a non-partisan issue is a good thing. The more we separate gun rights from partisans and the Parties, the more we can work together to repeal stupid gun restrictions and influence gun legislation.
Cody

[Shellback]

SCOTUS Blog has a good synopsis and timeline here (http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/district-court-strikes-down-last-ban-on-carrying-a-gun-in-public/).

[45dotACP]

There is no assurance that Obama-appointed judges will rule against gun rights or in favor of stricter gun control. This is proven by Republican appointees who have many, many times ruled against conservative policies and against gun rights. It's important to remember there are a lot of Democrats who support gun rights, especially at the State and local levels. And, there are some Republicans who favor more gun restrictions. Making this a non-partisan issue is a good thing. The more we separate gun rights from partisans and the Parties, the more we can work together to repeal stupid gun restrictions and influence gun legislation.
Cody
Quoted for agreement. Not all Democrats enjoy wiping their kittens with the Constitution. Some people seem to forget that not terribly long ago, democrat was the only party you voted for south of the Mason-Dixon....

[Jeep]

There is no assurance that Obama-appointed judges will rule against gun rights or in favor of stricter gun control. This is proven by Republican appointees who have many, many times ruled against conservative policies and against gun rights. It's important to remember there are a lot of Democrats who support gun rights, especially at the State and local levels. And, there are some Republicans who favor more gun restrictions. Making this a non-partisan issue is a good thing. The more we separate gun rights from partisans and the Parties, the more we can work together to repeal stupid gun restrictions and influence gun legislation.
Cody

I like the idea of it being a non-partisan issue, and there are indeed Dems who are in favor of gun rights and Reps opposed. However, that isn't so much the case in the federal courts--at least in regard to the Dems. In the Supremes, the 4 Dem nominees are convinced antis, and that is generally the pattern in the circuit courts. The decision by the Third Circuit came from Dem nominees.

Personally, I'd wish they'd all leave their politics at home and just read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. But that isn't going to happen.

[Jeep]

There is no assurance that Obama-appointed judges will rule against gun rights or in favor of stricter gun control. This is proven by Republican appointees who have many, many times ruled against conservative policies and against gun rights. It's important to remember there are a lot of Democrats who support gun rights, especially at the State and local levels. And, there are some Republicans who favor more gun restrictions. Making this a non-partisan issue is a good thing. The more we separate gun rights from partisans and the Parties, the more we can work together to repeal stupid gun restrictions and influence gun legislation.
Cody

I like the idea of it being a non-partisan issue, and there are indeed Dems who are in favor of gun rights and Reps opposed. However, that isn't so much the case in the federal courts--at least in regard to the Dems. In the Supremes, the 4 Dem nominees are convinced antis, and that is generally the pattern in the circuit courts. The decision by the Third Circuit came from Dem nominees.

Personally, I'd wish they'd all leave their politics at home and just read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. But that isn't going to happen.

[joshs]

The decision, even if it isn't staid (which I think is highly unlikely) wouldn't really result in constitutional carry because the decision doesn't affect the registration requirement. Possession of an unregistered firearm would still be punishable by up to five years. Since DC doesn't currently allow nonresidents to register firearms, there is no current path for nonresidents to be able to carry.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2

[cclaxton]

The decision, even if it isn't staid (which I think is highly unlikely) wouldn't really result in constitutional carry because the decision doesn't affect the registration requirement. Possession of an unregistered firearm would still be punishable by up to five years. Since DC doesn't currently allow nonresidents to register firearms, there is no current path for nonresidents to be able to carry.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2
Sounds like a job for NRA lawyers to tackle.
Cody

[Cacafuego]

The decision, even if it isn't staid (which I think is highly unlikely) wouldn't really result in constitutional carry because the decision doesn't affect the registration requirement. Possession of an unregistered firearm would still be punishable by up to five years. Since DC doesn't currently allow nonresidents to register firearms, there is no current path for nonresidents to be able to carry.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2

From Scotusblog, linked by Irish:

"In his final ruling, Judge Scullin declared that the Second Amendment right to carry a gun outside the home applies not only to residents of Washington, D.C., but also to visitors to the city. One of the individuals who sued was not a resident. The ruling applies both to open and concealed carrying of handguns in public."

[GardoneVT]

Quoted for agreement. Not all Democrats enjoy wiping their kittens with the Constitution. Some people seem to forget that not terribly long ago, democrat was the only party you voted for south of the Mason-Dixon....

Much more recently, a few brave Democrats stood up to Obama and Co. when AWB V2.0 came up for a vote . I live hundreds of miles outside of her district, but ND Senator Heitkamp has earned herself a Christmas card from me this year.

Edit:Emily Miller has posted to the effect that DC Cheif Lanier has instructed her officers to NOT arrest anyone lawfully able to carry a weapon in DC or in any state. What was that Chinese saying about interesting times again....?

[Stephen]

Here's the quote Gordone referenced.

https://www.facebook.com/EmilyMillerDC/posts/772351989490379


Per DC Police Chief Lanier, the only gun arrests allowed now are DC residents with unregistered guns and non-residents who are prohibited under federal laws from possessing firearms. Everyone else is in the clear.

[ffhounddog]

Now what cases are they judging on that are not getting publicity. With being in this Kitten Place I like it but the issue stands some of these things are look left I am going right.

Now back to the case you probably do not want any magazines that say for Law Enforcement use only. This is a new ruling and well I hate being detained it ruins my plans for the day.

On 95 it is Ironic that a Garrison size Army of Northern Virginia Battle Flag flying just North of Fredericksburg, Va.

[punkey71]

Here's the quote Gordone referenced.

https://www.facebook.com/EmilyMillerDC/posts/772351989490379
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/07/28/4aby2u2u.jpg

[RevolverRob]

Much more recently, a few brave Democrats stood up to Obama and Co. when AWB V2.0 came up for a vote . I live hundreds of miles outside of her district, but ND Senator Heitkamp has earned herself a Christmas card from me this year.

Edit:Emily Miller has posted to the effect that DC Cheif Lanier has instructed her officers to NOT arrest anyone lawfully able to carry a weapon in DC or in any state. What was that Chinese saying about interesting times again....?


Here's the quote Gordone referenced.

https://www.facebook.com/EmilyMillerDC/posts/772351989490379

I SO want to believe that.

As in I so want to believe that, because I so want to go visit DC and see the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Smithsonian with my gun on my hip. Not because I think I need it, but because, damnit, that's what this was all meant for.

-Rob

[Kanly]

As a DC resident having followed this case for the last few years, I never thought I'd find myself in urgent need of a good appendix or iwb holster for my P228.

Still in a bit of shock at how this has played out.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[5pins]

From the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-attorney-general-plans-to-seek-stay-of-ruling-overturning-districts-handgun-ban/2014/07/27/00d9e9d0-15c5-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html?tid=hpModule_13097a0c-868e-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394&hpid=z10


In an order approved by Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier, police were told that District residents are permitted to carry pistols if the weapons are registered. Those who had not registered their handguns could be charged on that ground, the instruction said.

Lanier’s instructions to police also said that residents of other jurisdictions without felony records would not be charged under the ban on carrying pistols

[JV_]

It'll be interesting to see what happens when someone tests this law, and inadvertently steps on to federally owned land - it's not easy to avoid.

[Shellback]

Emily Miller on Fox.


http://youtu.be/tYCvt01Ze1M

[joshs]

It'll be interesting to see what happens when someone tests this law, and inadvertently steps on to federally owned land - it's not easy to avoid.

If it's National Park land, which a lot of the land down town is, as long as the person doesn't enter a "facility" then the rule of the jurisdiction controls on park land.

I still think that D.C./Lanier are following what I would consider to be the most favorable reading of the ruling to help argue for a stay in the appellate court. They're willing to have people lawfully carrying guns in the District as long as its only for one day or less.

[JV_]

What about places like the Capitol complex grounds?

Is a "facility" a building, or could it be an area?

[Tamara]

I hope somebody in the area is staking out the local Targets and Starbucks and so forth with a camera to spot the inevitable.

[Malamute]

What about places like the Capitol complex grounds?

Is a "facility" a building, or could it be an area?

I believe "facility" means building. That's the way its been in Yellowstone and other places. The grounds are OK, inside a federally operated building is a no go. Even a rented commercial building used for .mil recruiting is considered a federally operated building (that particular office space I believe). I've seen signs to that effect on such a building.

[trailrunner]

Since hi-cap mags are banned in DC, would that apply to me if I carry there?

[5pins]

I would think the over 10 round mag law would still be valid.

I wish I had time to run down to DC and walk on the national mall with a gun on me. Just to say I did it.

[Shellback]

Since hi-cap mags are banned in DC, would that apply to me if I carry there?

Not if you're a newscaster.

[RoyGBiv]

I wish I had time to run down to DC and walk on the national mall with a gun on me. Just to say I did it.
I called a friend and asked him to do it for me.... I can live vicariously.
Told him I'd post his bail if he had any problems that he didn't cause himself.

[45dotACP]

Not if you're a newscaster.
Day has now been made. That's some funny stuff right there.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I hope somebody in the area is staking out the local Targets and Starbucks and so forth with a camera to spot the inevitable.

Thanks for ruining my plans of hitting the D.C. kosher places legally armed.

Me = Sad Panda being Sad.
Poo!

[Palmguy]

I SO want to believe that.

As in I so want to believe that, because I so want to go visit DC and see the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Smithsonian with my gun on my hip. Not because I think I need it, but because, damnit, that's what this was all meant for.

-Rob

Even taking Lanier's order at face value and assuming it is valid; you'd still have to go through the metal detector at the National Archives and they wouldn't let you in armed.

I agree though in principle.

[cclaxton]

I have contacted the DC Firearms office and they owe me a call back this afternoon with the current enforcement policy.
Cody

[GardoneVT]

Even taking Lanier's order at face value and assuming it is valid; you'd still have to go through the metal detector at the National Archives and they wouldn't let you in armed.

I agree though in principle.

Not if he carries a Glock 7.Might cost more then what he makes in a month, though.

[Stephen]

Have you guys ever read the list of places where its illegal to carry in Illinois? Its absurd. Any form of public transport, parks, playgrounds, all arenas/stadiums, all pro & college sporting events, libraries, zoos, museums, amusement parks, hospitals, nursing homes. If we get to the point where DC institutes their own carry scheme, they'd consider that list a starting point. Those kind of restrictions combined with federal facilities would make DC a minefield.

[RoyGBiv]

Have you guys ever read the list of places where its illegal to carry in Illinois? Its absurd. Any form of public transport, parks, playgrounds, all arenas/stadiums, all pro & college sporting events, libraries, zoos, museums, amusement parks, hospitals, nursing homes. If we get to the point where DC institutes their own carry scheme, they'd consider that list a starting point. Those kind of restrictions combined with federal facilities would make DC a minefield.
Public transport would be a huge issue for lots of DC folks. I'd be happy to be able to carry to the outside monuments, to/from my hotel/car/restaurant/groceries, normal life stuff. Driving through the District instead of around it. It won't be Arizona, but it also won't be the same as it is today. Baby steps. or in this case, baby's first step.

[cclaxton]

I just spoke to the DC Firearms Division and the Officer there said "It is legal to carry for today." (July 28, 2014)
But he expects the City Council to act to request a Stay and then the old law will stay in effect until a new law is enacted.
I was tempted to go there just to enjoy the moment, but I have other plans.
I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice, so if you go to DC with a concealed firearm and permit the risk is totally yours.
Cody

[5pins]

Official directive from the DC chief.

http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/07-137-14.pdf

[JDM]

Official directive from the DC chief.

http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/07-137-14.pdf

Wow. That's awesome.

[hank440]

The Judge in Palmer vs District Columbia just issued an injunction against Chief Lanier stating again that the firearm laws are unconstitutional and unenforceable until a higher court rules.

[will_1400]

Not if he carries a Glock 7.Might cost more then what he makes in a month, though.

Or he can get his John Malkovitch on.

[5pins]

The Judge in Palmer vs District Columbia just issued an injunction against Chief Lanier stating again that the firearm laws are unconstitutional and unenforceable until a higher court rules.



Do you have a link?

[hank440]

no DEPT directive which i can not link here without being unemployed :(

it will hit the news soon

[RoyGBiv]

The Judge in Palmer vs District Columbia just issued an injunction against Chief Lanier stating again that the ??? firearm laws ??? are unconstitutional and unenforceable until a higher court rules.
More than just the carry outside the home laws?

[Shellback]

Official directive from the DC chief.

http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/07-137-14.pdf

Fantastic! Thanks for posting that.

[Shellback]

DC attorneys have requested a 180 day stay. (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/dcs-request-to-stay-the-handgun-carry-ban/1156/)


I hope somebody in the area is staking out the local Targets and Starbucks and so forth with a camera to spot the inevitable.

http://cdn5.gunssavelives.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/dccarry.jpg

[5pins]

Well it was fun while it lasted.

Federal judge grants 90-day stay in D.C. gun case
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/29/federal-judge-grants-90-day-stay-dc-gun-case/

[RevolverRob]

Well it was fun while it lasted.

Federal judge grants 90-day stay in D.C. gun case
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/29/federal-judge-grants-90-day-stay-dc-gun-case/

Unsurprising really, but 90 days isn't bad. Obviously, they will try to appeal the ruling, but if they are unsuccessful the ruling in the case makes it clear that they will have to provide Resident AND Non-Resident permits in their system. The real question is, will they get away with the non-resident hoop jump that Illinois is getting away with currently (where they require non-residents submit psych history, and then basically deny non-res permits).

[Shellback]

This doesn't sound too good. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/wp/2014/07/29/lawmakers-signs-promote-gun-free-dc-in-wake-of-court-ruling/)

Kris Hammond, a Republican running against Chairman Phil Mendelson (D), said Tuesday that an appeal would be a “waste of taxpayer money” and that the city would be better served by carefully rewriting its laws to comport with the ruling — perhaps, he suggested, to match over cities with strict carry policies like Chicago and New York.

“If the District wants the strictest laws that are constitutional, they should look to these other jurisdictions rather than fight this out in court,” said Hammond, a former Justice Department lawyer.

http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/files/2014/07/gun_free_dc.png

[45dotACP]

I'm fairly certain the residents of D.C. would be happier to have Illinois' system as opposed to New York's.....Not that either are ideal, but one is "Shall issue" and the other is not.

[Stephen]

In light of the court's ruling, can they get away with may issue?

And my God is #GunFreeDC stupid. How can you claim to be free of guns when criminal use of them is rampant? How about #GangbangerMonopolyOnGuns?

[cclaxton]

Same reason there are so many dry counties in Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky and North Carolina: The moonshiners gotta make a livin.
The DC criminals gotta make a livin.
Cody

[5pins]

I have been thinking about this and I have to wonder. If the judge truly thought the city was infringing on the plaintiffs rights, then why stay his order. I can understand a higher court doing so until they had a chance to review the case.

Personally I wish the judge would have told the city to either pass a law that is acceptable to the court, or appeal his decision.

And to the plaintiff that agreed to the stay. Why? Why agree to the continued denial of your rights.

[cclaxton]

I have been thinking about this and I have to wonder. If the judge truly thought the city was infringing on the plaintiffs rights, then why stay his order. I can understand a higher court doing so until they had a chance to review the case.

Personally I wish the judge would have told the city to either pass a law that is acceptable to the court, or appeal his decision.

And to the plaintiff that agreed to the stay. Why? Why agree to the continued denial of your rights.
Two reasons:
1) When you have a radical change to a law where legislation must be completed in order to institute new laws, it is customary to give the government time to draft and pass those laws.
2) The judge has to look upstream at the court of appeals above him, and what is the likelihood they will approve a Stay, and it would be likely. No judges like being overruled like that.

The judge wasn't trying to establish an absolute right to carry in public without any regulations/laws by local government. He was trying to say that government can't ban it outright. So, DC gov't must provide a means to apply-for, be approved-for and receive a concealed carry permit for a resident and a non-resident. Now whether those new laws/regulations would be reasonable or not is another matter for the courts to decide. If DC tries to create laws that effectively means no one will ever qualify, then it will probably be ruled unreasonable. If DC creates a law considered reasonable, then it will probably stand.

Based on how they dealt with Heller ruling, and what I know about DC government collecting money, they will require significant training for residents (and maybe non-residents), and be required to show proficiency, submit to a Secret Service background check, pay a steep fee, and restrict carrying in most, if not all gov't buildings.

There is an opportunity here for gun-advocates to influence this legislation in a positive way. If we just hammer them with the injustice of it and keep chanting 2nd Amendment, 2nd Amendment, we will not influence the outcome. We should try to prevent the law from being a "May Issue" law, and we should try to prevent "good and reasonable cause" qualifications, and we should try to get the ability to store our guns in our locked vehicles when parking on public or private property. We should also try to prevent any hollow-point ban as well. I think those are all achievable with a civil and courteous lobbying campaign and political funding in the right places. If we try to have a showdown about the 2nd Amendment being an absolute right...we will not get anything.

Cody

[joshs]

I have been thinking about this and I have to wonder. If the judge truly thought the city was infringing on the plaintiffs rights, then why stay his order. I can understand a higher court doing so until they had a chance to review the case.

Personally I wish the judge would have told the city to either pass a law that is acceptable to the court, or appeal his decision.

And to the plaintiff that agreed to the stay. Why? Why agree to the continued denial of your rights.

It's general practice for courts to issue a stay when striking down a law, even on constitutional grounds. Since the court can't put in place a complying law on its own, the legislative body is given time to act to enact a law that complies with the decision.

[Shellback]

Update: http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/26341727/mendelson-says-he-will-appeal-dc-gun-carry-ruling


WASHINGTON - D.C. is in the cross hairs of a Second Amendment fight. The city is the only place in the country that has a complete ban on carrying guns outside the home. Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Frederick Scullin ruled in the Palmer case that the law was unconstitutional and D.C. had to allow people to carry guns.

In an exclusive interview, D.C. City Council Chairman Phil Mendelson told FOX 5 on Thursday that he will appeal the gun carry ruling, making the information public for the first time.

"The whole issue of the public carrying of a firearm is very complicated," Mendelson said. "And I believe the executive and the attorney general will continue with the appeal."

Also this week, the city asked the court for six more months to rewrite its gun laws. Right now, the city has until October 22. That's why Mendelson said gun carry will be at the top of the agenda when the city council returns from recess.

"What the court said very clearly was that a complete 100-percent ban on anybody being able to get a license to carry a handgun was unconstitutional. But there's a gray area between 100-percent ban and everybody can carry. And that's what we're working through."...

[Tamara]

All this is leading up to SCOTUS eventually deciding on how strict "May Issue" can be without being unconstitutional. Will the NYC model hold up?

[RevolverRob]

All this is leading up to SCOTUS eventually deciding on how strict "May Issue" can be without being unconstitutional. Will the NYC model hold up?

Yes and I'm very mixed on how I feel about this. We're winning nicely at the state level (look at California or Hawaii for instance). Would this be better fought in the few may issue states, or is it better to hand down a SCOTUS ruling that may not be firm and allow some may issue wiggle room?

I think that the second "may issue" is viewed constitutional states like Illinois will be spinning up a may issue replacement for their current shall (after you fight a long battle) issue one.

-Rob

[joshs]

Yes and I'm very mixed on how I feel about this. We're winning nicely at the state level (look at California or Hawaii for instance). Would this be better fought in the few may issue states, or is it better to hand down a SCOTUS ruling that may not be firm and allow some may issue wiggle room?

I think that the second "may issue" is viewed constitutional states like Illinois will be spinning up a may issue replacement for their current shall (after you fight a long battle) issue one.

-Rob

California and Hawaii were both 9th Circuit decisions, so they have the potential to go to SCOTUS too. Even if the Court approves of a may-issue system, I don't think there is the political will in Illinois to go may-issue. There was a may-issue alternative draft in Illinois, but they passed shall-issue (sort of) anyways. Shepard didn't say they had to have shall-issue either, but the anti-gunners couldn't get the votes for may-issue


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2

[45dotACP]

Yes and I'm very mixed on how I feel about this. We're winning nicely at the state level (look at California or Hawaii for instance). Would this be better fought in the few may issue states, or is it better to hand down a SCOTUS ruling that may not be firm and allow some may issue wiggle room?

I think that the second "may issue" is viewed constitutional states like Illinois will be spinning up a may issue replacement for their current shall (after you fight a long battle) issue one.

-Rob
I doubt IL would change a thing. The "No Beretta 92s allowed" posters are going up everywhere. I hope it goes well in SCOTUS because if we lose, it's back to education and grassroots work on a state by state basis. But I doubt the previous states will immediately make the jump to a may issue plan.

But the longer it takes to go to SCOTUS, the less chance we have of an even remotely good ruling. Because I have no faith in the Repulican party getting a good candidate any time soon. Their last few candidates got beat by a junior level community organizer. If they put Hilary on the ticket, there goes all of it. (barf)

[GardoneVT]

I doubt IL would change a thing. The "No Beretta 92s allowed" posters are going up everywhere. I hope it goes well in SCOTUS because if we lose, it's back to education and grassroots work on a state by state basis. But I doubt the previous states will immediately make the jump to a may issue plan.

But the longer it takes to go to SCOTUS, the less chance we have of an even remotely good ruling. Because I have no faith in the Repulican party getting a good candidate any time soon. Their last few candidates got beat by a junior level community organizer. If they put Hilary on the ticket, there goes all of it. (barf)

There's a flip side to that coin. The SCOTUS could rule in favor of discretionary issue , which means carry permits will remain denied to millions of Americans for the foreseeable future.

[45dotACP]

True, but my way of thinking is "It's going to SCOTUS eventually." So we might as well push for a review while the bench sits in our favor

[RevolverRob]

California and Hawaii were both 9th Circuit decisions, so they have the potential to go to SCOTUS too. Even if the Court approves of a may-issue system, I don't think there is the political will in Illinois to go may-issue. There was a may-issue alternative draft in Illinois, but they passed shall-issue (sort of) anyways. Shepard didn't say they had to have shall-issue either, but the anti-gunners couldn't get the votes for may-issue


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2

joshs,

You always seemed better versed in this than I do. Is it preferable that Palmer v. DC go to SCOTUS or one of the 9th Circuit rulings (California or Hawaii)? Second question and that one I was pondering before - Do we want/need a SCOTUS ruling or is it better to keep fighting this in the few states that remain may-issue?

I think we all know that the SCOTUS panel is currently made up in our favor. Is it a strike while the iron is hot or is calculated next moves at lower court levels? McDonald and Heller were both in our favor, with favorable wording in them to set pro-gun and pro-carry precedents. Do we think the court will make rulings with as much weight in the future? Regardless, with DC appealing, it seems that higher court rulings may be inevitable.

I'm aware of the situation in Illinois, regarding the lack of votes for May-Issue. But it remains, a firm SCOTUS ruling that some form of may-issue is acceptable may result in the rewriting of rules to make it so in places where there isn't enough political influence. Illinois, thanks to a very influential pro-carry effort is safe...for now...but I'd rather may-issue remain questionably constitutional than firmly ruled constitutional...I hope that makes sense.

-Rob

[joshs]

Palmer would likely be decided without reaching the question of issuing authority discretion (it's not at issue in that case). However, it's unlikely that Palmer would get to SCOTUS before Peruta.

[CMG]

joshs,

You always seemed better versed in this than I do. Is it preferable that Palmer v. DC go to SCOTUS or one of the 9th Circuit rulings (California or Hawaii)? Second question and that one I was pondering before - Do we want/need a SCOTUS ruling or is it better to keep fighting this in the few states that remain may-issue?

I think we all know that the SCOTUS panel is currently made up in our favor. Is it a strike while the iron is hot or is calculated next moves at lower court levels? McDonald and Heller were both in our favor, with favorable wording in them to set pro-gun and pro-carry precedents. Do we think the court will make rulings with as much weight in the future? Regardless, with DC appealing, it seems that higher court rulings may be inevitable.

I'm aware of the situation in Illinois, regarding the lack of votes for May-Issue. But it remains, a firm SCOTUS ruling that some form of may-issue is acceptable may result in the rewriting of rules to make it so in places where there isn't enough political influence. Illinois, thanks to a very influential pro-carry effort is safe...for now...but I'd rather may-issue remain questionably constitutional than firmly ruled constitutional...I hope that makes sense.

-Rob
A ruling either way provides clarity on where to focus future efforts. If may-issue is ruled constitutional, then you focus on changing state law via grassroots efforts. If may-issue is ruled unconstitutional you can focus on legal efforts to overturn via the court system and it prevents efforts to go back to the old system. Having more clarity helps us in the long run.

[5pins]

New permitting scheme is out. Looks like they are making it almost impossible for someone to get one. :eek:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/22/gun-shy-dc-sets-up-hurdles-for-concealed-carry-app/

[RoyGBiv]

New permitting scheme is out. Looks like they are making it almost impossible for someone to get one. :eek:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/22/gun-shy-dc-sets-up-hurdles-for-concealed-carry-app/

This will certainly lead to a Supreme Court challenge against "may issue".

[PPGMD]

If I was an instructor in DC, Maryland, or Virginia why would I waste $435 to get certified to teach the DC carry class, when we all know that candidates that will pass DC's "good cause" standards will be few and far between.

[abu fitna]

I would consider doing so out of charity, to help those who have had their civil rights denied for far too long. However, the likelihood that arbitrary and capricious enforcement of regulated training standards would pose legal jeopardy to myself or those students is simply too great to ignore, given the very public statements by DC government officials that they intend to defy very clear judicial intent and continue to use every stratagem that they can devise to evade the court and continue to strip the people of basic liberties.

This chilling effect is something that I have heard from more than a few other folks that would have considered otherwise attempting to navigate the byzantine new law, and it is likely a litigable issue in its own right. Likewise, the very dearth of legal channels by which one may purchase a weapon, acquire state ordered training, and otherwise comply with nearly impossible burdens on an enumerated right should also give rise to an as applied challenge.

But until the 2nd is treated as ordinary constitutional law by the courts, this kind of blatant tyranny will continue.

[5pins]

New updates on the case.

Federal court denies Palmer case reconsideration on DC carry ban.

http://www.examiner.com/article/federal-court-denies-palmer-case-reconsideration-on-dc-carry-ban

[RoyGBiv]

Related: Emily Miller applied for a DC carry permit this week. (http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/27600498/how-to-prove-a-special-danger-to-get-a-gun-carry-permit-in-dc)

[5pins]

It would be interesting to know who the two people are that got their carry permit.

[LorenzoS]

It bothers me every time I read that DC is the last place to permit legal carry. New Jersey is technically a May Issue state but in practice it is unobtainable for 99.99999% of the population.

[RoyGBiv]

It would be interesting to know who the two people are that got their carry permit.

I'm betting Congresscritters. Although Al Sharpton would be fun to "out" on that one.

[5pins]

DC issues first gun-carry permits

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/28/dc-issues-first-gun-carry-permits/?intcmp=latestnews


The District of Columbia has issued its first concealed handgun carry permits. As of January 26, there are eight civilians who can legally carry a firearm in the nation's capital. Currently, more permit applicants have been denied than approved.

[RoyGBiv]

^^^ I wonder how many of those 8 are "connected".

[45dotACP]

^^^ I wonder how many of those 8 are "connected".
I wonder how many of them are liberals, calling for more gun control?

[JV_]

Liberal congress members can already carry in DC, legally. They are the same ones who call for more control.

[joshs]

Liberal congress members can already carry in DC, legally.

There isn't an exemption in the D.C. carry prohibition for members of congress.

[Jeep]

^^^ I wonder how many of those 8 are "connected".

What? You think that our political class would favor their own over mere flyover people? Next you are going to be telling me that when Congress was prevented from giving itself a raise a few years back it snuck in things like a car allowance instead.

Besides, San Fran Nan and others have armed guards--they don't need to carry their own heat, which after all would be heavy and might clash with their designer clothing.

[JV_]

There isn't an exemption in the D.C. carry prohibition for members of congress.

There was a bit of contention some years ago, between congress members and the DC government. This was when Jim Webb's aid was caught with Webb's gun.

They're legally allowed to bring guns on to the Capitol complex. The disagreement came about, IIRC, because there was no legal way for them to get the guns to the Capitol without passing through DC (duh!). I can even recall some official joking about bringing them in by helicopter to avoid DC. I don't know what law/resolution came about after this, but I thought it was resolved. I'm wondering if it wasn't resolved with a new law/clarification, and DC just agreed to look the other way?

[RoyGBiv]

Emily Miller gets DC gun carry permit approved (http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/28192641/fox-5-emily-miller-gets-dc-gun-carry-permit-approved?config=H264)
I wonder what the temp is in Hades today? Snowing there too?


The approval letter made the reason clear. I was approved based on two different threats against me, which I had documented with police reports. These are my “special dangers.”

The letter said that the police did not accept into consideration the terrorist threat against journalists because it is considered “general in nature.”

I have only received preliminary approval. To get the permit, I have to take 18 hours of classes with an instructor certified by the police within 45 days.

Soooo.... Here's my inner cynic...
DC approved her permit because they didn't want her reporting about appealing her denial all the way to SCOTUS.

[Bigguy]

The letter said that the police did not accept into consideration the terrorist threat against journalists because it is considered “general in nature.”

So do I understand correctly that you are less dead if killed by a "general threat," than if killed by a specific one?

[RoyGBiv]

So do I understand correctly that you are less dead if killed by a "general threat," than if killed by a specific one?

A general threat being sufficient would allow anyone to get a permit. We can't have that. /snark

[5pins]

I heard on the radio this morning, on my way to work, that the judge has ruled that the “need requirement” is unconstitutional. I can’t find anything online to confirm it.

[5pins]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/18/dc-good-reason-gun-ownership-requirement-halted-by/

[LittleLebowski]

Shoot, they're even going to have to allow non-residents (subject to change and appeal)! The DC laws were modeled upon Maryland's so this might be good news for MD sooner or later.

[RoyGBiv]

Another source. Article includes complete court order.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/05/big-2a-win-court-strikes-dc-requirement-of-good-reason-for-concealed-carry-permit/


After reviewing the entire file in this matter, the parties’ submissions and the applicable law, and for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby

ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction are enjoined from enforcing the requirement of D.C. Code § 22-4506(a) that handgun carry license applicants have a “good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol,” including, but not limited to, the manner in which that requirement is defined by D.C. Code § 7-2509.11 and 24 D.C.M.R. §§ 2333.1, 2333.2, 2333.3, 2333.4, and 2334.1, against Plaintiffs Brian Wrenn, Joshua Akery, Tyler Whidby, and other members of Plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.; and the Court further -22-Case 1:15-cv-00162-FJS Document 13 Filed 05/18/15 Page 23 of 23

ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, are enjoined from denying handgun carry licenses to applicants who meet the requirements of D.C. Code 22- 4506(a) and all other current requirements for the possession and carrying of handguns under District of Columbia law; and the Court further

ORDERS that, pursuant to Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs shall post security in the amount of $1,000.00; and the Court further

ORDERS that counsel shall appear for a conference with the Court on Tuesday, July 7, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. to discuss an expedited schedule for the resolution of this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

[Kyle Reese]

Shoot, they're even going to have to allow non-residents (subject to change and appeal)! The DC laws were modeled upon Maryland's so this might be good news for MD sooner or later.

Wouldn't it be the height of irony if DC had Shall Issue carry before Maryland? I can see the latter holding out until the bitter end.

[rsa-otc]

NJ will probably be the last one standing. :mad:

[TCinVA]

If they eliminate DC's idiot gun laws we will have to have a PF get together in DC.

[Josh Runkle]

If they eliminate DC's idiot gun laws we will have to have a PF get together in DC.

Yes. Absolutely. In Lafayette Park.

[LorenzoS]

NJ will probably be the last one standing. :mad:
Hard to say who will win in the battle of the worst between the State of NJ, the State of NY and the City of NY. Personally, I chose to get out of that sad game and never looked back.

[rsa-otc]

Interesting article about the ramifications of this decision for NY and surrounding areas.

http://nypost.com/2015/05/20/dc-loss-for-gun-control-puts-new-york-citys-laws-at-risk/

[olstyn]

The bit at the end of that article about how NY was only willing to ratify the constitution because of the inclusion of the second amendment is highly entertaining. :)

[Shellback]

Rand Paul kicks ass. (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/19/rand-paul-pushes-defend-capital-act-requires-d-c-issue-concealed-weapons-permits/)

According to Paul’s press release, his legislation, Defend Our Capital Act 2015, would:

Require the District of Columbia to begin issuing concealed weapons permits for both residents and non-residents.
Require the District of Columbia to grant reciprocity of concealed weapons permits issued by other states and commonwealths.
Eliminate existing District of Columbia laws that restrict firearms and ammunition ownership.
Allow for national reciprocity of conceal and carry weapons permits between states and for carry by active duty military.
Allow for the carrying of firearms on public, non-sensitive areas of federal property.
Allow for the purchase of firearms across state lines.

[RoyGBiv]

Nice. Fat chance the current POTUS would sign it, but still.... Nice.

[5pins]

Appeals court blocks DC's concealed-carry law on Second Amendment grounds

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html

[RoyGBiv]

Appeals court blocks DC's concealed-carry law on Second Amendment grounds

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/appeals-court-blocks-dcs-concealed-carry-law-on-second-amendment-grounds.html

Waiting for the en Banc reversal in 3..... 2.... 1....