View Full Version : U.S. District Court throws out handgun ban in DC.
ChadAmberg
07-26-2014, 15:47
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.
more... (http://alangura.com/2014/07/victory-in-palmer-v-d-c/)
Damn. Tide keeps on turning. It's interesting that the last sentence basically says they have to allow residents of other states to carry. What does that mean for states that don't recognize other state permits?
Double00
07-26-2014, 15:51
Good news indeed!
It means you can open carry your bazookas, full auto assault rifles and automatic pistols....well at least that is what the media and liberals will say.
Great-Kazoo
07-26-2014, 16:36
It means you can open carry your bazookas, full auto assault rifles and automatic pistols....well at least that is what the media and liberals will say.
MEOW.........nothing lighter than plutonium. I can CCW ANYWHERE. Granted what's left of my hair's kinda gotten a little thin.
Aloha_Shooter
07-26-2014, 16:47
more... (http://alangura.com/2014/07/victory-in-palmer-v-d-c/)
Damn. Tide keeps on turning. It's interesting that the last sentence basically says they have to allow residents of other states to carry. What does that mean for states that don't recognize other state permits?
DC's a special circumstance in that most of its workers live outside the District and a lot of people cross the District's lines daily for social purposes. I'm not sure the injunction would have much bearing for a Coloradan visiting New York or Illinois.
TEAMRICO
07-26-2014, 17:15
It means you can open carry your bazookas, full auto assault rifles and automatic pistols....well at least that is what the media and liberals will say.
Chit!
Walks back down to basement.............
Last sentence means they have to issue nonresident permits. It does not mean they have to honor permits from other states.
If they take IL as an example the restrictions on where you can carry will be so tight that you can carry in your car as you drive through but not anywhere else or in any parking area. (sadly that would be an improvement)
Last sentence means they have to issue nonresident permits. It does not mean they have to honor permits from other states.
If they take IL as an example the restrictions on where you can carry will be so tight that you can carry in your car as you drive through but not anywhere else or in any parking area. (sadly that would be an improvement)
I just finished reading the court opinion and what the injunction states is that no enforcement of DC code against non-resident possession of firearms in DC if the non-resident is in legal possession of the firearm. Until the DC City Council and the Congress reviews any new legislation, or a higher court lifts the injunction, there is not enforceable law against carrying a firearm in DC by residents or non-residents.
I predict the DC City Council will address this issue this week. It should be interesting.
spqrzilla
07-26-2014, 18:09
Its a District Court ruling, not a Supreme Court ruling.
[MOD: Good catch. I fixed the thread title]
Its a District Court ruling, not a Supreme Court ruling.
Correct. District Court for the District of Columbia. The published opinion can be found here: http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DCT_OPINION.pdf
DC's a special circumstance in that most of its workers live outside the District and a lot of people cross the District's lines daily for social purposes. I'm not sure the injunction would have much bearing for a Coloradan visiting New York or Illinois.
As much as the people of the District would like to imply that they are a special circumstance, I disagree.
DC has tried numerous times to impose a commuter tax on workers in DC. Congress has not allowed that to happen for obvious reasons. NYC on the other hand levies a commuter tax on all of the workers who live in NJ and the surrounding counties in NY state. If it wasn't for the negative affect on business, I suspect there are progressive politicians in Denver who would love to impose the same type of tax on commuters from surrounding counties in the metro area.
Lots of tourists from around the nation travel to and through both DC and NYC. IMO, if my CO driver's license is good enough to let me drive my 2000 pound, motorized death machine in both jurisdictions, then my CO CCW should be sufficient for me to legally possess and carry my 32 oz. pistol. The District Court basically ruled that since DC denied anyone who is a non-resident the ability to carry in DC, the practice was an unconstitutional ban on the right to bear arms. The ball is back in DC's court, so to speak. The City Council needs to come up with an acceptable form of allowing non-residents to carry in DC. I anxiously await their response. Past history of watching the DC City Council has often left me scratching my rapidly balding head.
I thought it was illegal in DC to even OWN a handgun, let alone get a CCW permit? And what about ammo - don't they have some bullshit law about all ammo and components have to be registered or some such shit? Seems like there was a recent case where some poor bastard was being crucified for having an empty shotgun shell or something.
Score one for the people.
I thought it was illegal in DC to even OWN a handgun, let alone get a CCW permit? And what about ammo - don't they have some bullshit law about all ammo and components have to be registered or some such shit? Seems like there was a recent case where some poor bastard was being crucified for having an empty shotgun shell or something.
The Heller decision forced DC to establish provisions for DC residents to apply for a permit to own and keep a firearm in their home. Along with that process, the registered owner was required to register any ammunition they intended to keep with the firearm. No one, outside of military, LEO was legally allowed to have their firearm outside of their house until this injunction issued today.
I know there was a provision in the DC Code for transport of a newly purchased firearm to and from the residence for training or service, but I don't know the specifics. Also, there is only one registered FFL in DC. If a DC resident made it through the process to register a firearm for their home, they would have to have the firearm shipped to this one FFL (who I believed had an office in the Wilson Building). I imagine his transfer fees were pretty steep and his books would be easily accessible to anyone in the DC government. Almost two years after Heller and the number of registered firearms owners in DC was under 50,000 out of about 650,000 residents. Here is a fairly recent story about the re-registration requirements for gun owners in DC http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/12/17/tens-of-thousands-of-d-c-gun-owners-forced-to-re-register-firearms/
Another interesting story about gun registration in DC and how it affects different citizens http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/07/AR2011020706450.html
Huh. I "think" the first place I ever saw full-autos and suppressors for sale was in a little gun shop/used car dealership in Fairfax, VA, almost right across the river from DC. I remember when I opened the door to the place, there was an M2HB on a tripod right inside staring me in the face.
As much as the people of the District would like to imply that they are a special circumstance, I disagree.
DC has tried numerous times to impose a commuter tax on workers in DC. Congress has not allowed that to happen for obvious reasons. NYC on the other hand levies a commuter tax on all of the workers who live in NJ and the surrounding counties in NY state. If it wasn't for the negative affect on business, I suspect there are progressive politicians in Denver who would love to impose the same type of tax on commuters from surrounding counties in the metro area.
Without calling it a commuter tax, Denver did figure out a way to get similar tax, they just tax everybody who works in Denver monthly regardless of where they live. It's called the Denver Occupational Privilege Tax (DOPT). Who would have thought of that, an extra tax just because you work in Denver, oh wait, I forgot Denver has been run by democrats for a while now.
hurley842002
07-26-2014, 21:58
Without calling it a commuter tax, Denver did figure out a way to get similar tax, they just tax everybody who works in Denver monthly regardless of where they live. It's called the Denver Occupational Privilege Tax (DOPT). Who would have thought of that, an extra tax just because you work in Denver, oh wait, I forgot Denver has been run by democrats for a while now.
Yup, I have the "privilege" of paying $5 a month to work in Denver. That equates to roughly $550 since I've worked there.
Huh. I "think" the first place I ever saw full-autos and suppressors for sale was in a little gun shop/used car dealership in Fairfax, VA, almost right across the river from DC. I remember when I opened the door to the place, there was an M2HB on a tripod right inside staring me in the face.
The entire time I worked in the District, every politician blamed the violent crime rate on the ease of access to guns in Virginia. The ease of access was through B&Es in neighborhoods where no one was home all day. Besides the terrible press, most of the murders in the early 90's were seen as low priority cases. They either shot each other or ended up in Lorton. The first option was much better for the bottom line.
The other common line that ran every night on the TV was that the crack war was fueled by the white privileged suburban kids driving into the District to score some rock. Just not true. If the kids in the suburbs wanted rock, it was delivered to the burbs. Now hookers...everyone seemed to drive into the District for the variety that only an International Capitol can offer [pileoshit]
Without calling it a commuter tax, Denver did figure out a way to get similar tax, they just tax everybody who works in Denver monthly regardless of where they live. It's called the Denver Occupational Privilege Tax (DOPT). Who would have thought of that, an extra tax just because you work in Denver, oh wait, I forgot Denver has been run by democrats for a while now.
I didn't know that. Learn something everyday. Thanks.
Because DC couldn't get a commuter tax, they would just write parking tickets on non-DC tags...even if they were legally parked.
KevDen2005
07-26-2014, 23:02
I didn't know that. Learn something everyday. Thanks.
Because DC couldn't get a commuter tax, they would just write parking tickets on non-DC tags...even if they were legally parked.
Yep, happened to me on numerous occasions.
I am always interested in a DC story like this for similar reason you are.
Greenwood Village has a head tax as well I believe; but it was only $3 a month when I last checked.
Aloha_Shooter
07-27-2014, 00:41
As much as the people of the District would like to imply that they are a special circumstance, I disagree.
DC has tried numerous times to impose a commuter tax on workers in DC. Congress has not allowed that to happen for obvious reasons. NYC on the other hand levies a commuter tax on all of the workers who live in NJ and the surrounding counties in NY state. If it wasn't for the negative affect on business, I suspect there are progressive politicians in Denver who would love to impose the same type of tax on commuters from surrounding counties in the metro area.
Lots of tourists from around the nation travel to and through both DC and NYC. IMO, if my CO driver's license is good enough to let me drive my 2000 pound, motorized death machine in both jurisdictions, then my CO CCW should be sufficient for me to legally possess and carry my 32 oz. pistol. The District Court basically ruled that since DC denied anyone who is a non-resident the ability to carry in DC, the practice was an unconstitutional ban on the right to bear arms. The ball is back in DC's court, so to speak. The City Council needs to come up with an acceptable form of allowing non-residents to carry in DC. I anxiously await their response. Past history of watching the DC City Council has often left me scratching my rapidly balding head.
You are free to disagree but I think you misread what I was saying. The fact of the matter is, no state in the union has the majority of its workers reside outside its borders. Most people working in New York live in New York (albeit not necessarily true for the City). DC is not a state and should never be a state but any traffic through its borders is interstate by definition. DC therefore has more of an obligation to NOT burden the rights of people who reside outside its borders and engage in interstate transit daily.
DC is a special circumstance in many cases, not just this, by design. Frankly, I think the DC City Council has gone well beyond its reasonable jurisdiction a long time ago. I don't want them to "come up with an acceptable form of allowing non-residents to carry", they have no business "allowing" anything for people who reside outside the District. They have tried to extort money from Congress for the past 3 decades in exactly the ways Congress feared -- which is exactly why Congress created a special district to house the federal government in the first place. I still say Eleanor Holmes Norton should be tossed onto the sidewalk as her position is clearly invalid and illicit. They could take the rest of the district and assign parts of it to PG or Montgomery Counties for purposes of voting for federal office and tell the rest of the "Home Rule" yahoos to lump it.
The District is a product of our Constitution. Congress does have ultimate authority over any laws passed by the home rule government. The Congress is as incapable of administering a modern US city as Albany would be in trying to run NYC.
I agree, DC should never become a state, but home rule was necessary and inevitable. The DC shadow representative in Congress is like a childhood imaginary friend; nice to have around at times, but easy to ignore.
An interesting read for anyone interested in why DC is special: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/03/the-constitution-and-the-district-of-columbia
Well, this was worth the wait...and who said the wheels of government move slowly
DC Attorney General plans to seek a stay after judge rules DC gun control law is unconstitutional
http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/26124780/dc-attorney-general-plans-to-seek-a-stay-after-judge-rules-dc-gun-control-law-is-unconstitutional
http://oag.dc.gov/
An interesting read for anyone interested in why DC is special: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/03/the-constitution-and-the-district-of-columbia
There's no need to be PC about it and use the word "special". You can say "why DC is retarded". We understand.
68Charger
07-28-2014, 07:37
There's no need to be PC about it and use the word "special". You can say "why DC is retarded". We understand.
[ROFL2]
Aloha_Shooter
07-28-2014, 09:40
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/28/dc-police-chief-orders-officers-not-arrest-legal-g/
D.C. police officers were instructed late Sunday not to arrest people for carrying legally registered handguns on city streets in the wake of a judge’s ruling that determined the District’s ban on carrying handguns in public was unconstitutional.
Scenarios
You stop a man on the street carrying a firearm and:
Scenario 1: The man says he is a resident of the District, but the gun is unregistered.
You should charge him with Unregistered Firearm.
Scenario 2: The man lives in Vermont, which does not require a license or permit for either open or concealed carry of a handgun. You run his name, and no criminal record is apparent.
You should record any relevant information for potential further investigation, and he is free to leave.
Scenario 3: The man lives in Virginia, where no license or permit is required to openly carry a handgun. However, when you run his name, records indicate that he is a convicted felon.
Under District and federal law, felons may not legally possess a firearm. You should arrest him for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm.
— From teletype issued to officers by Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier
Chief Lanier’s memo ... states that police can still charge D.C. residents with possession of an unregistered firearm in the case that they have not registered the weapon with the Metropolitan Police Department. Individuals from other states will no longer be charged with the crime.
...
[It] also gives D.C. residents the ability to register handguns for the purpose of carrying the firearm in public for self-defense.
So...will this ruling change anything about the no guns policies of the national parks and monuments in D.C?
Sent from my electronic leash.
Aloha_Shooter
07-28-2014, 15:31
So...will this ruling change anything about the no guns policies of the national parks and monuments in D.C?
Dave Kopel has an excellent article in the Volokh Conspiracy (unfortunately now homed at the Washington ComPost): http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/28/licensed-handgun-carry-now-legal-in-district-of-columbia-palmer-v-dc/
He specifically addresses your question:
Under a 2009 federal statute, National Parks must follow the arms-carrying policies of their host state. The National Park Service regulation implementing this statute includes the following exemption to a general ban on weapons in National Parks. “(h) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Chapter, a person may possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national park area in accordance with the laws of the state in which the national park area, or that portion thereof, is located, except as otherwise prohibited by applicable Federal law.” 36 C.F.R. § 2.4. Thus, it might arguably be lawful to carry a concealed handgun at the Jefferson Memorial, if you have a handgun carry permit from your home state (or if you are a D.C. resident with a registered handgun).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.