Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Frank Castle on July 26, 2014, 06:40:22 PM
-
Justice never sleeps…. not even on a Saturday afternoon, when this opinion was just handed down.
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://alangura.com/ (http://alangura.com/)
-
Oh boy, the legislatures and talking heads on MSNBC are gonna be squeeling like stuck little piggies when this hits the news cycle!!!
[popcorn] [popcorn] :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :rofl:
:angel:
-
Does anyone thing that this will actually change anything. =|
-
Waitaminute...... Does this mean that DC essentially is now "constitutional carry" until they come up with a "constitutional" licensing scheme for CCW?
-
DC residents should rejoice.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/26/emily-miller-federal-judge-rules-dc-ban-on-gun-carry-rights-unconstitutional/
-
That's how I read it.
[quoteDC code 22-4504(a)]No person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so concealed. [/quote]
If that's unenforcable, then I can carry a gun. Open or concealed. Of course, as far as I know the judicial branch doesn't have an enforcement arm yo spring you, or stop DC metro from shooting you.
Maybe CSD will go see if it works? He's nearby and gets along with cops. >:D
-
Excellent news! Even the smallest of steps forward is still a step in the right direction.
(Screams of righteous indignation from the "They didn't repeal everything all the way back to NFA so this sucks!!" contingent beginning in 3... 2... 1... )
Brad
-
You carry I'll video it
-
Maybe CSD will go see if it works? He's nearby and gets along with cops.
He would not get along with them after he tried it.
-
In DC no way
-
Merged threads.
-
That's how I read it.
If that's unenforcable, then I can carry a gun. Open or concealed.
When Illinois lost, the court gave them (IIRC) six months to fix it. Anything like that here?
-
Waitaminute...... Does this mean that DC essentially is now "constitutional carry" until they come up with a "constitutional" licensing scheme for CCW?
That's what the ruling says -- in language so plain that not even a DC tile crawler could fail to understand it. And I think it was especially kind of the judge to head off another lawsuit by specifically enjoining DC from discriminating against non-residents.
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.
Link to the actual decision, courtesy of The Firing Line: http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DCT_OPINION.pdf
What an opinion. Considering that we all thought the judge was stonewalling the case, this decision is dynamite. If DC has any sense at all, they won't even bother to appeal. It suddenly appears that the judge was just waiting for enough other 2A cases to be decided in favor of the 2A to give him a bucketload of citations with which to pad his decision.
Now, if we can just keep the Texas Open Carry morons from descending on DC with AK-47s slung off their shouldersd, and ruining it for us, maybe things will progress in DC.
-
You carry I'll video it
Dogmush will be fine, but I'm afraid that your camcorder (or cell phone) will put them in fear for their lives though. :O
-
Ah DC....
Further reading reminds me that a pistol would still need to be registered to even be possessed in the district.
So someone that had a legally registered pistol can carry it. But if you want to carry yours, you'd need to get it registered in DC before you got there.
-
Ah DC....
Further reading reminds me that a pistol would still need to be registered to even be possessed in the district.
So someone that had a legally registered pistol can carry it. But if you want to carry yours, you'd need to get it registered in DC before you got there.
Interesting. I haven't read the whole thing, but doesn't it specify that dc can't prohibit non-residents from carrying? Seems like requiring a pistol to be registered, when they can't register it, would prohibit carry by a non-resident.
-
Interesting. I haven't read the whole thing, but doesn't it specify that dc can't prohibit non-residents from carrying? Seems like requiring a pistol to be registered, when they can't register it, would prohibit carry by a non-resident.
As far as I can tell (read the whole thing, correct me if I am wrong)
1. They CAN'T enforce a no-carry whatsoever (until they make a compliant law)
2. They CAN'T prohibit CARRY based solely on residency
3. They CAN'T prohibit registration based solely on residency (not sure on this one, but the section on the 14th seems to mean this)
4. They CAN require registration
5. They CAN require registration in order to carry (WHEN they eventually make their new law)
Also, based on the decision citing the "greatest hits" so frequently (Heller, Macdonald, Peruta, Madigan), I am also hopeful w.r.t. The registration/permit to carry being closely scrutinized w.r.t. Not running afoul of those decisions. HOWEVER, I am pretty confident DC is going to pull a Chicago on this one and I would bet good money a second lawsuit is going to be required once they actually make a law.
If I am wrong, please correct.
-
As far as I can tell (read the whole thing, correct me if I am wrong)
1. They CAN'T enforce a no-carry whatsoever (until they make a compliant law)
2. They CAN'T prohibit CARRY based solely on residency
3. They CAN'T prohibit registration based solely on residency (not sure on this one, but the section on the 14th seems to mean this)
4. They CAN require registration
5. They CAN require registration in order to carry (WHEN they eventually make their new law)
Also, based on the decision citing the "greatest hits" so frequently (Heller, Macdonald, Peruta, Madigan), I am also hopeful w.r.t. The registration/permit to carry being closely scrutinized w.r.t. Not running afoul of those decisions. HOWEVER, I am pretty confident DC is going to pull a Chicago on this one and I would bet good money a second lawsuit is going to be required once they actually make a law.
If I am wrong, please correct.
You're not wrong, but they most likely will arrest you and make you go through all the hassle of taking them to court. Same thing as a sheriff or police chief in a state that doesn't prohibit full auto's, but who won't sign Form 4's. You can take him to court and win, but it will cost you $$$. And the next guy who comes along will be told "no", and he'll have to go to court.
I know this isn't news to anyone here. It just frustrates the hell out of me that officials can get away with this.
-
DC jail sucks.
-
DC jail sucks.
Voice of experience? ;)
-
Well if it is now legal in DC it should be legal nationwide.
-
Voice of experience? ;)
More than once. Worst was getting locked up Friday afternoon memorial day weekend. Was Tuesday 6 pm before I got out. No night courts back then
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/28/licensed-handgun-carry-now-legal-in-district-of-columbia-palmer-v-dc/
-
I would read the basis of that article is getting ready to open up national reciprocity.
-
You carry I'll video it
Common in Philly. Law is clear, but the cops don't know that. So it's an easy if slightly risky way of getting a ten thousand dollar settlement.
-
As far as I can tell (read the whole thing, correct me if I am wrong)
1. They CAN'T enforce a no-carry whatsoever (until they make a compliant law)
2. They CAN'T prohibit CARRY based solely on residency
3. They CAN'T prohibit registration based solely on residency (not sure on this one, but the section on the 14th seems to mean this)
4. They CAN require registration
5. They CAN require registration in order to carry (WHEN they eventually make their new law)
Also, based on the decision citing the "greatest hits" so frequently (Heller, Macdonald, Peruta, Madigan), I am also hopeful w.r.t. The registration/permit to carry being closely scrutinized w.r.t. Not running afoul of those decisions. HOWEVER, I am pretty confident DC is going to pull a Chicago on this one and I would bet good money a second lawsuit is going to be required once they actually make a law.
If I am wrong, please correct.
Ding ding.
http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/07-137-14.pdf
DC residents will get hit with unregistered. Non-DC residents may carry. =D
Until the city gets a stay.
-
Ding ding.
http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/07-137-14.pdf
DC residents will get hit with unregistered. Non-DC residents may carry. =D
Until the city gets a stay.
...Is it wrong that I read that document and giggled?
-
City asked for, but has not been granted, a stay and 180 days to get a permit system set up. Plaintiffs (Gura) are offering 90, undoubtedly pointing out that Illinois's 180 turned into 270.
DC Chief Lanier and AG are playing by the rules -without- games. Park Police say they will do the same. No one wants to get hit with contempt at this point.
Contact your Congress-critter, get them on record supporting Palmer as-is or not. Get them to circulate a letter to be signed by all members. Let's make Congress take a hard stand prior to the mid-terms.
After all, Congress can make this law in the District just by voting for it, the Pres doesn't get a say IIRC.
-
Even though I live near DC (as in about 30 miles away), most of my trips into the district are for touristy stuff. How does this law affect museums, monuments, etc?
Chris
-
If it posted no carry or is barred by various law its still off limits. Per Park Police "Park Carry" (legal by local ie DC law) applies on Mall and other basically outdoor attractions.
-
Waitaminute...... Does this mean that DC essentially is now "constitutional carry" until they come up with a "constitutional" licensing scheme for CCW?
Hilarious. I'm surprised nobody else LOLed it.
-
Even though I live near DC (as in about 30 miles away), most of my trips into the district are for touristy stuff. How does this law affect museums, monuments, etc?
The ruling does not address the longstanding federal law prohibiting firearms in federal facilities. Note that the law says "in," not "on." However, that hasn't stopped the Veterans Administration from posting signs citing that law and saying that firearms are prohibited anywhere on the grounds.
The law defines "federal facility" as any building or structure where federal employees routinely work. (Paraphrased) So gummint museums like the Smithsonian and monuments such as the Washingtom Monument are off limits, but you can technically walk right up to the front door of the capital building and be legal -- but you can't go inside.
EXCEPT -- Judge Scullin did issue a 90-day stay, so our ability to enjoy "constitutional carry" in DC was short-lived.
-
The ruling does not address the longstanding federal law prohibiting firearms in federal facilities. Note that the law says "in," not "on." However, that hasn't stopped the Veterans Administration from posting signs citing that law and saying that firearms are prohibited anywhere on the grounds.
The law defines "federal facility" as any building or structure where federal employees routinely work. (Paraphrased) So gummint museums like the Smithsonian and monuments such as the Washingtom Monument are off limits, but you can technically walk right up to the front door of the capital building and be legal -- but you can't go inside.
EXCEPT -- Judge Scullin did issue a 90-day stay, so our ability to enjoy "constitutional carry" in DC was short-lived.
If the National Park Service owns it you can (could anyway) walk all over the grounds, that's the Mall and Lincoln Monument etc.
That Federal Facilities law needs to be changed to "carry is allowed per the law of the state anywhere the general public can go in the normal course of business, not requiring addl screening or permission." Just like the airport in most states.
If a given area doesn't have a screening point, isn't "employees only", and/or you don't require a pass or escort it is open to legal carry since it is, in fact, wide open to illegal carry.