Author Topic: VICTORY IN DC PALMER CASE (Read 3946 times)

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 Â§ 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code Â§ 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/

TommyGunn · « **Reply #1 on:** July 26, 2014, 06:49:41 PM »

Oh boy, the legislatures and talking heads on MSNBC are gonna be squeeling like stuck little piggies when this hits the news cycle!!!

RoadKingLarry · « **Reply #2 on:** July 26, 2014, 07:28:17 PM »

Does anyone thing that this will actually change anything.

AmbulanceDriver · « **Reply #3 on:** July 26, 2014, 08:07:06 PM »

Waitaminute...... Does this mean that DC essentially is now "constitutional carry" until they come up with a "constitutional" licensing scheme for CCW?

Battle Monkey of Zardoz · « **Reply #4 on:** July 26, 2014, 08:17:21 PM »

DC residents should rejoice.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/26/emily-miller-federal-judge-rules-dc-ban-on-gun-carry-rights-unconstitutional/

dogmush · « **Reply #5 on:** July 26, 2014, 08:20:00 PM »

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.

Brad Johnson · « **Reply #6 on:** July 26, 2014, 08:38:15 PM »

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

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #7 on:** July 26, 2014, 08:39:43 PM »

You carry I'll video it

Battle Monkey of Zardoz · « **Reply #8 on:** July 26, 2014, 08:40:47 PM »

Quote

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.

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #9 on:** July 26, 2014, 08:42:29 PM »

In DC no way

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #10 on:** July 26, 2014, 08:45:50 PM »

Merged threads.

lee n. field · « **Reply #11 on:** July 26, 2014, 09:06:31 PM »

Quote from: dogmush on July 26, 2014, 08:20:00 PM

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?

Hawkmoon · « **Reply #12 on:** July 26, 2014, 09:15:55 PM »

Quote from: AmbulanceDriver on July 26, 2014, 08:07:06 PM

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.

Quote

the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code Â§ 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code Â§ 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.

Tim L · « **Reply #13 on:** July 26, 2014, 10:25:11 PM »

Quote from: cassandra and sara's daddy on July 26, 2014, 08:39:43 PM

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.

dogmush · « **Reply #14 on:** July 27, 2014, 08:33:54 AM »

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.

lupinus · « **Reply #15 on:** July 27, 2014, 10:16:02 AM »

Quote from: dogmush on July 27, 2014, 08:33:54 AM

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.

birdman · « **Reply #16 on:** July 27, 2014, 11:21:25 AM »

Quote from: lupinus on July 27, 2014, 10:16:02 AM

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.

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #17 on:** July 27, 2014, 11:35:46 AM »

Quote from: birdman on July 27, 2014, 11:21:25 AM

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.