Palmer v. D.C.

[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.

[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....?