• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

DC Circuit Court rules in favor of carry in DC

GunnyGene

GunnyGene

Racist old man
BANNED
I meant to say DC Circuit Court. Sorry.

Gun rights advocate extraordinaire Alan Gura reports that the DC Circuit just overturned the District of Columbia’s ban on the right to carry firearms. You can read the ruling here. As Gura quotes the ruling:

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 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.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/07/daniel-zimmerman/breaking-dcs-ban-right-carry-overturned/
Click to expand...
 
http://alangura.com/2014/07/victory-in-palmer-v-d-c/

"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 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."
 
Since this case has dragged on for 5 years, I'm pretty sure it pained them greatly to be forced to arrive at this decision. :)
 
I fixed the title for you Gunny.

This is good news including the part where I can carry if I visit there. I have always found it very troubling that gun ownership/carry was denied to inner city people that need it the most. Crime will fall there now, just watch.
 
^That is good news. Nice to hear some for "our" side once in awhile.

Just got wind that our government (Can.) has brought forward some common sense amendments to our licensing regs and proposing to rescind our mandatory and non-sensical Authorization to Transport paperwork requirement for all restricted weapons (handguns, etc). New rules would obviously ease the need for extra paperwork and headaches for owners.

Under the current system, the CFO (Chief Firearms Officers) have been making us join gun clubs in order to own a handgun or restricted rifle (you know...the black, evil ones) before allowing us to take home a legally purchased restricted firearm. They had this idiotic notion that by making us declare our purposes for ownership and the proverbial red tape and hoop jumping that they would dissuade us from purchasing. FYI- each province has a CFO and they love to change the rules as they go and they vary from province to province in their implementation.

The government has been talking about centralizing the CFO Office virtually doing away with the current bureaucratic nightmare and taking away the classifying of firearms from the RCMP and giving it to an expert, civilian agency...we can only hope and keep up the pressure.

The only way things change...we gotta stay vocal and in their faces!!!
 
carbinemike said:
I fixed the title for you Gunny.

This is good news including the part where I can carry if I visit there. I have always found it very troubling that gun ownership/carry was denied to inner city people that need it the most. Crime will fall there now, just watch.
Click to expand...


Thanks. Haven't heard if the city will try to appeal this to the Supremes. I don't think they will, but you never know. I think instead they will sic a team of shysters on it and try to draft regulations that are technically Constitutional, but are such a PITA that people just give up.

There is one small fly in the ointment tho, so it might be a good idea to have a copy of the court decision in your pocket if you decide to carry in DC. My bold below.

ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in
active concert or participation from them who receive actual notice of this Memorandum-
Decision and Order from enforcing D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and D.C. Code § 22-4504(a)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
A followup story on WaPo:

D.C. police were told Sunday not to arrest people for carrying handguns on the street in the wake of a judge’s ruling that overturned the city’s principal gun-control law.

However, the D.C. attorney general’s office said it would seek a stay of the ruling while the city decides whether to appeal.

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.

The number of registered pistols is thought to be low.

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.

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc- ... story.html
Click to expand...
 
Appeal to who?

I thought the supreme court was the high court of the land, and probably already went through at least two appeals before being heard by the SCOTUS.
 
Good to hear and about time.

John A. said:
Appeal to who?

I thought the supreme court was the high court of the land, and probably already went through at least two appeals before being heard by the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

I think they are drawing at straws and will try anything to reverse a decision they don't like.
 
But the supreme court already ruled on it.

Who would they appeal to?
 
John A. said:
But the supreme court already ruled on it.

Who would they appeal to?
Click to expand...

There is a period of time in which the court may re-hear a case, but it is very rarely done. The only other recourse would be to petition congress to change the law and then re-file.

I doubt either of these two things will happen so they really have no way to appeal, they're just crying because they got spanked. Most likely they will do what Chicago continually does and make new laws that make it exceptionally difficult to obtain guns/permits while riding the fringe of constitutionality until it gets challenged again. Even of the laws are blatantly unconstitutional it's months or years in the courts before they get reversed, which they see as a win.
 
John A. said:
Appeal to who?

I thought the supreme court was the high court of the land, and probably already went through at least two appeals before being heard by the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

The court that ruled on this wasn't SCOTUS. It was the DC District Court, so they could appeal to the SCOTUS on a couple of technicalities, but that would take at least a couple years and given the Heller and other cases there's a good chance that Scotus would not even accept the case or could easily rule against the city. It would be a big gamble. I think they will try to make it difficult and expensive to carry instead. Similar to what Chicago has been doing.
 
DOH!! I didn't catch that I thought this was a SCOTUS ruling.
 
MikeD said:
DOH!! I didn't catch that I thought this was a SCOTUS ruling.
Click to expand...

I did to, when I first read it because the judge in the case made a number of references to previous SCOTUS gun cases as a basis for his ruling. :)

As an aside, I think it's pretty interesting that you won't find much on the media about this ruling, and what you can find is usually just a bare short blurb. Even Fox has shoved the story off the front page.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps I have an "antique" way of looking at things, but if I were an elected official, I would feel better IF there were guns around. And lots of them.

After all, one of the main reasons that Japan didn't undergo a full scale invasion of the U.S. (which given the size of their military at the time could've left permanent scars at the very least or even a completely different historical outcome), but just BECAUSE there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass, they opted against it.

Sad days these are. These attacks on our fundamental rights really need to cease and is a slippery and dangerous path and emit the wrong image, not just to "their base", but to the entire world.
 
John A. said:
Perhaps I have an "antique" way of looking at thingsQUOTE]
Antique=Patriotic in my book. ;) People that want to give away freedoms deserve the chains that will shackle them.

From DC's court petition:
"The unique situation of the District—home as it is to the center of federal government (including a history in this city of attempted assassination by firearm of sitting presidents), numerous, historically-important sites, and thousands of visiting foreign officials and dignitaries every year (some of whom receive death threats)—requires a careful analysis of the rights granted under the Second Amendment that is distinctly applicable to this unique jurisdiction,"

I can only ask if DC is so full of wonderful federal bureaucrats, foreign (both legal and illegal!) visitors and dignitaries why do they have so many criminals running around that anyone with half a brain gets out of town before the sun goes down? You won't find many of the $85,000+ per year federal paper pushers living in the DC limits. The highways are jammed going into town in the morning and out of town after 5:00. Do they really think anyone buys the argument that they won't have an assassination attempt since guns aren't allowed to be conceal carried in DC?

Sorry to hear that Tom, 90 days will give them enough time to suck the life out of the latest ruling.
Click to expand...
 
What we all knew is official. DC will do everything they can to skirt the recent ruling. The are looking at the Maryland law that was upheld at the federal appeals level that allows the state to require the carrier to provide a "valid" reason that they need the permit. A lower court judge ruled against Maryland saying that one doesn't have to show a reason they want to utilize guaranteed rights. They also seem to think they are special which I guess means they think the Constitution has no authority there.

Updated 7:30 p.m. | Though they won’t yet say how far they are willing to take their fight, District of Columbia officials plan to do everything in their power to limit the carrying of handguns in the nation’s capital, arguing that despite a court’s ruling that paves the way for more permissive laws, Washington is a unique place with heightened security concerns.
“An absolute ban on [carrying handguns] may not pass constitutional muster regardless of the judge, so we’re going to prepare by working on legislation that will pass muster” said Tommy Wells, a Democrat who represents Capitol Hill on the D.C. Council.
As chairman of the Council’s Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety, Wells will play a key role in D.C.’s response to the July 26 ruling by Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. that declared the complete ban on carrying handguns in public unconstitutional. The court granted a stay of the ruling Tuesday, giving District officials 90 days to figure out how they will protect public safety while complying with the Constitution.
“We have to have a smart bill ready to go, and we can’t be in denial about this,” Wells said in a Wednesday interview. He offered Maryland’s permit law as an example. Last year, a federal appeals court ruled that the state can require people applying for concealed-carry handgun permits to provide a “good and substantial reason” reason for wanting to carry.
“As restrictive as possible,” is the suggestion of D.C. Councilmember David Catania, a Republican-turned-independent who is running for mayor. He said the implications of the ruling are “very, very concerning.”
“Right now, our top priority must be public safety. I will continue to work with Chairman [Phil] Mendelson and my colleagues to determine next steps,” said Councilmember Muriel Bowser, Democratic nominee for mayor, in an email to CQ Roll Call “At the end of the day, we must strike the right balance between responsible gun ownership and protecting residents and visitors in the nation’s capital.”
Mayor Vincent Gray and his administration were still evaluating whether they would appeal the decision, but they say the stay — in effect until Oct. 22 — gives the city enough breathing room to figure out a strategy.
During a downtown news conference on Wednesday, Gray said he was working with public safety and law enforcement officials to “now really try to ascertain what all the ramifications of this ruling are.” That was “not entirely clear” for those who read the 19-page ruling in Palmer v. District of Columbia, the mayor said.
Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said she got “unofficial word that the law had been banned” at 9 p.m. on July 26, a Saturday night, and then faced the challenge of “trying to inform a 5,000-person department that polices 24 hours a day, seven days a week” of the ramifications.
“There are lots of federal and local law enforcement folks that are allowed to be armed, that are out there in plain clothes and off duty that we encounter every day,” she said, “so it’s not that we’re not used to encountering people who are in fact armed — that’s not a big shift for us.”
If they choose to appeal, the D.C. attorney general’s office believes it has unique and powerful arguments to make about why a ban on carrying is necessary.
“There’s no court — the Supreme Court or any court in this city — that has put out a ruling that is operative that our current law does not survive,” said Ariel Levinson-Waldman, senior counsel to the attorney general.
“We are the seat of the federal government,” he said. “We have dignitaries and other federal officials who are subject to constant death threats. We’ve had actual assassinations and assassination attempts using firearms in this city. We are a unique place.”
Capitol Hill is one of the areas local officials indicated they want to protect.
Demonstrators could come to the city “armed to the gills,” Cantania said in an interview. He said there is no telling what might happen when tempers are running high on the many international and domestic policies regularly debated in the halls of Congress. Catania said allowing people to carry handguns “intimidates another very important constitutional right, which is free speech.”
Wells said protecting members of Congress, staff and their families is “an obligation.” In response to Republican efforts to dismantle D.C.’s gun laws, Wells said, “if Congress decides no, they have to the power to change it.”
The man leading the charge in the House, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., taunted local leaders from the floor of the chamber about the impact of the judge’s ruling.
“Did gun-toting tourists commence to shoot-outs?” he asked rhetorically on Tuesday, three days after the judge’s order. “Did residents cower in their homes? Did vigilante posses maraud about the city? Did politicians revert to dueling at 10 paces? No, none of these things are happening. History will show the streets are safer today as more law-abiding residents and visitors are armed.”
Massie, a chief supporter of a House-passed proposal that opponents said would make D.C. one of the most permissive gun jurisdictions in the nation, said that contrary to “apocryphal warnings from D.C. leaders, no one is panicked — except for the city’s leaders.”
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top