DC Carry ruling... finally


PDA






AFRetired
July 26, 2014, 08:27 PM
Finally, a ruling on the DC carry issue. I'm sure it will be appealed to SCOUS.


"A federal judge in the District of Columbia on Saturday overturned the city’s total ban on residents being allowing to carry firearms outside their home, declaring the law “unconstitutional” in a landmark decision for gun-rights activists"

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

If you enjoyed reading about "DC Carry ruling... finally" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Midwest
July 26, 2014, 08:30 PM
BREAKING: DC’s Ban on Right To Carry Overturned

This is not speculation, this isn't someone's opinion, this is the real deal.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/07/daniel-zimmerman/breaking-dcs-ban-right-carry-overturned/


"Gun rights advocate extraordinaire Alan Gura reports that the DC District Court just overturned the District of Columbia’s ban on the right to carry firearms."

Here is the ruling

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv1482-51

Also read here

http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DCT_OPINION.pdf

.

aarondhgraham
July 26, 2014, 08:44 PM
This is great news,,,
But the cynic in me says,,,
DC will drag this out for many years

I'm impatient is all.

Aarond

.

splithoof
July 26, 2014, 09:13 PM
Thank you for posting that link…..
While the appeals will be certain, and the process very long, it is still good news. Perhaps in my lifetime this will eventually bleed down to Californiastan, and effect meaningful, practical change. The politicians and their minions will continue to drag their diamond coated titanium heels all the way to the end, but in the end I think liberty will prevail. Another glimmer of hope in a statist dust storm.

Twiki357
July 26, 2014, 09:19 PM
Emily Miller (Fox5 DC): “The court ordered the city to now allow residents from the District and other states to carry weapon within its boundaries.” I sure like that other states part. If it stands as implied, it could also open the door for national reciprocity.

Yo Mama
July 26, 2014, 09:53 PM
Someone buy Gura a beer!

You the man!!!

splithoof
July 26, 2014, 09:57 PM
Not only beer for Gura, but DIAPERS for the politicians. The politicians of Leftist Los Angeles may in the future really need them, especially the chief of police.

Willie Sutton
July 26, 2014, 09:58 PM
Just logged on to share the news, and see it's already been posted.

Nice news for a Saturday!


Willie

.

pendennis
July 26, 2014, 10:31 PM
While I'm very glad for the citizens of D.C., and those who would enter the District, I would like to know why McDonald isn't applicable, and eliminating all these separate actions.

McDonald recognized that the 14th Amendment applied to the several states, ergo protecting 2nd Amendment rights.

Field Tester
July 26, 2014, 10:31 PM
Wow, wow, wow!
This ruling is going to be felt in a lot more places than just DC
First the 9th Circuit and now this. Hopefully we can keep this momentum.

mgkdrgn
July 26, 2014, 10:50 PM
So, they switch from "no permits" to "may issue" ... and issue none.

Big whoop.

bushmaster1313
July 26, 2014, 10:51 PM
So, they switch from "no permits" to "may issue" ... and issue none.

Big whoop.

Right

it don't mean squat until the Supreme Court says that may issue is unconstitutional.

ClickClickD'oh
July 26, 2014, 10:53 PM
"May Issue" hasn't been doing so well in the courts either these days.

Midwest
July 26, 2014, 10:57 PM
"May Issue" hasn't been doing so well in the courts either these days.
Now we have to work on getting that "may issue" changed in New Jersey, Maryland, Hawaii, New York City and the other counties in NY and California that are "may issue" as well as Rhode Island which 1/2 the state is "may issue".

Sam1911
July 26, 2014, 11:39 PM
Make sure you've read the whole ruling before you decide it ISN'T AWESOME.

So, they switch from "no permits" to "may issue" ... and issue none.

Big whoop.

It would seem that's the exact problem the plaintiffs filed for relief from (one of them).

In their complaint, Plaintiffs assert two claims for relief. In their first claim, Plaintiffs allege that, "[b]y requiring a permit to carry a handgun in public, yet refusing to issue such permits and refusing to allow the possession of any handgun that would be carried in public, Defendants maintain a complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public by almost all individuals."

In its decision, the court specifically ORDERS that DC is enjoined from enforcing it's law D.C. Code § 22-4504(a).

D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) provides that "[n]o person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so concealed." The first violation of this section by a non-felon is punishable by a fine up to $5,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.


So they can't enforce their no-carry law, and in fact it seems they can't even require a license to carry at all!

GlowinPontiac
July 27, 2014, 12:27 AM
I have a feeling the first person to test this out by carrying in DC with no permit is going to be in for a world of hurt. The police and politicians are going to be very angry and looking for someone to make pay for this.

Sam1911
July 27, 2014, 12:31 AM
I have a feeling the first person to test this out by carrying in DC with no permit is going to be in for a world of hurt. The police and politicians are going to be very angry and looking for someone to make pay for this.So are you saying you expect them to ignore the court's order? Or just that they'll harass with other charges?

Sam1911
July 27, 2014, 12:34 AM
My simplified summation of the decision is this:

1) DC can still require a permit to possess a handgun.
2) DC HAS to issue that permit, if no legitimate reason is found not to.
3) DC HAS to issue that permit to folks who reside in DC and outside of DC too.
4) IF a person has been issued a permit to possess, they are legal to carry it.
5) When applying for a permit to possess, "Carry for defense outside the home" will be an acceptable reason.

Did I miss anything?

Willie Sutton
July 27, 2014, 01:48 AM
In their complaint, Plaintiffs assert two claims for relief. In their first claim, Plaintiffs allege that, "[b]y requiring a permit to carry a handgun in public, yet refusing to issue such permits and refusing to allow the possession of any handgun that would be carried in public, Defendants maintain a complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public by almost all individuals."


Seems like a springboard to revisit the NJ "May Issue" situation.

Good news in any event.


Willie

.

splithoof
July 27, 2014, 02:06 AM
If, after all the appeals have been exhausted and the courts rule in our favor, I can see places like DC and Los Angeles City & County simply refusing to comply, either through endless delay tactics, or an outright "no, we won't, because we feel the ruling is wrong" attitude. In that event, would there be any practical recourse? Who would/could actually MAKE them physically issue any permits? I see outright refusal on some parts.

swinokur
July 27, 2014, 06:20 AM
Here's the actual decision. It can be appealed to the DC Circuit, but remember they are bound by their previous decision in Heller.
.
.

AlexanderA
July 27, 2014, 08:30 AM
If this stands on appeal (which I doubt will happen), it's going to cause a security headache for the folks trying to guard the federal government activities and installations within the District. They're probably going to respond by declaring the "federal enclave" (the core area including the White House, the Capitol, the Mall, and all the surrounding government buildings and connecting streets) a gun-free zone, the same as a military base. In the meantime, the District government will enact a stringent licensing scheme that is, in effect, "may issue" verging on "no issue." And Congress will go along with this (regardless of its political makeup), because the Congresspeople value their personal security more than they do the pro-gun rhetoric that they spout for the benefit of their constituents back home. Call me cynical.

Drail
July 27, 2014, 08:57 AM
It will be fought with much kicking and screaming and gnashing of teeth. Just like Chicago. I've always felt that if they truly believe that guns are so horrible and dangerous and evil then they should ban them all - from the police and the Secret Service and the military as well. No guns for anyone. They're just too dangerous to our society. Think of the children. It's not over yet. I would personally like to see the whole issue of requiring a "license" or "tax" or "fee" to exercise a Constitutional right addressed by the Courts.

T2K
July 27, 2014, 09:18 AM
Someone is likely to test this and will probably be instantly arrested and charged with a mountain of felonies which will take years and piles of money to litigate. So goes the USA in the 21st century.

F-111 John
July 27, 2014, 09:25 AM
My simplified summation of the decision is this:

1) DC can still require a permit to possess a handgun.
2) DC HAS to issue that permit, if no legitimate reason is found not to.
3) DC HAS to issue that permit to folks who reside in DC and outside of DC too.
4) IF a person has been issued a permit to possess, they are legal to carry it.
5) When applying for a permit to possess, "Carry for defense outside the home" will be an acceptable reason.

Did I miss anything?

No, but I think the court and the plantiff's plea for summary judgement missed something. The court enjoined the District from enforcing D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and D.C. Code § 22-4504(a), but failed to include D.C Code § 7-2506.01(a)(3) in its order.

D.C. code § 7-2506.01. Persons permitted to possess ammunition:

(a) No person shall possess ammunition in the District of Columbia unless:

(1) He is a licensed dealer pursuant to subchapter IV of this unit;

(2) He is an officer, agent, or employee of the District of Columbia or the United States of America, on duty and acting within the scope of his duties when possessing such ammunition;

(3) He is the holder of a valid registration certificate for a firearm pursuant to subchapter II of this chapter; except, that no such person shall possess one or more restricted pistol bullets;

(4) He holds an ammunition collector's certificate on September 24, 1976; or

(5) He temporarily possesses ammunition while participating in a firearms training and safety class conducted by a firearms instructor.

(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term "large capacity ammunition feeding device" shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.


Am I mistaken?

wojownik
July 27, 2014, 10:04 AM
F-111, I don't think you are mistaken. There will probably be another go-around on this - even separate of an appeal by DC authorities - due the messiness of DC firearms regs. § 7-2506.01 could make it difficult for non-DC residents to carry in DC (at a minimum, they'd need to watch out whether their normal capacity magazines meet DC restrictions (10 rounds or less).

Great ruling, but I don't think this is done yet.

AlexanderA
July 27, 2014, 10:44 AM
Am I mistaken?

I think that by "restricted pistol bullets" they mean so-called "cop killer bullets," which are a specifically defined category. Not the run-of-the-mill pistol rounds.

wildbilll
July 27, 2014, 10:58 AM
In Heller, I seem to remember a sentence that used the words "at the ready" or "in case of confrontation" or something like that, so that implies a loaded gun, not an unloaded gun. So that would be an absurd outcome to be able to continue a ammo ban.
It will be interesting if they appeal, that can mean they end up writing another check to the plaintiffs, like Chicago has had to do more than once.

Hypnogator
July 27, 2014, 11:24 AM
Awesome news!!! :D:D:D

It will be interesting if they appeal, that can mean they end up writing another check to the plaintiffs, like Chicago has had to do more than once.

It's not like it's real money, after all. It's only the taxpayers' money. :banghead::banghead::banghead:

steve4102
July 27, 2014, 11:56 AM
In the meantime, the District government will enact a stringent licensing scheme that is, in effect, "may issue" verging on "no issue." And Congress will go along with this (regardless of its political makeup), because the Congresspeople value their personal security more than they do the pro-gun rhetoric that they spout for the benefit of their constituents back home.

Don't be to sure about that. The House recently passed Thomas Massie's Amendment to restore DC residents gun rights.

The House of Representatives passed an amendment Wednesday that would prevent the District of Columbia from spending funds to enforce local gun laws — including registration and fingerprint requirements for gun owners.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/17/house-passes-amendment-to-restore-gun-rights-in-d-c/

ConstitutionCowboy
July 27, 2014, 01:12 PM
The real answer to this dilemma is for Congress to take back the power (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17) it unconstitutionally delegated to the DC City Council, then abide the Second Amendment.

Woody

Old Fuff
July 27, 2014, 01:25 PM
The real answer to this dilemma is for Congress to take back the power (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17) it unconstitutionally delegated to the DC City Council, then abide the Second Amendment.

Won't happen, except in a fantasy world so long as the Democrats control the Senate and Obama is in the White House with his veto pen ready. :banghead:

SleazyRider
July 27, 2014, 01:32 PM
Am I seeing things, or did I just read that a judge overturned Washington, D.C.'s ban on gun carry?


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/us/judge-overturns-dc-ban-on-guns-in-public.html

Midwest
July 27, 2014, 01:33 PM
Don't be to sure about that. The House recently passed Thomas Massie's Amendment to restore DC residents gun rights.

The House of Representatives passed an amendment Wednesday that would prevent the District of Columbia from spending funds to enforce local gun laws — including registration and fingerprint requirements for gun owners.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/17/house-passes-amendment-to-restore-gun-rights-in-d-c/
Yep I reported that here and the thread got locked.

" DC: Gun Law Nullified and Rights Restored?"


http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=757080

.

F-111 John
July 27, 2014, 01:37 PM
I think that by "restricted pistol bullets" they mean so-called "cop killer bullets," which are a specifically defined category. Not the run-of-the-mill pistol rounds.

Good call.

§ 7-2501.01. Definitions

(13A) (A) "Restricted pistol bullet" means:

(i) A projectile or projectile core which may be used in a pistol and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium;

(ii) A full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a pistol and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25% of the total weight of the projectile; or

(iii) Ammunition for a .50 BMG rifle.
(B) The term "restricted pistol bullet" does not include:

(i) Shotgun shot required by federal or state environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes;

(ii) A frangible projectile designed for target shooting;

(iii) A projectile which the Attorney General of the United States finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes; or

(iv) Any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General of the United States finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.

tyeo098
July 27, 2014, 02:09 PM
It seems today is the only day that Constitutional Carry is law in DC before the city council files for an injunction when they meet up tomorrow.

Quick, everyone carry in DC! :D

Fisherman_48768
July 27, 2014, 02:15 PM
Nobody should fear there being any concealed pistol permits being issued in DC. The permitting process requires a background check with a simple disqualification for crooks (politicians) and criminals (the rest): This simple provision will prevent any permits being issued in the district.

AlexanderA
July 27, 2014, 02:25 PM
The real answer to this dilemma is for Congress to take back the power (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17) it unconstitutionally delegated to the DC City Council, then abide the Second Amendment.

You have to realize that for years, the push by D.C. residents has been for full statehood for the District, which would give them two U.S. Senators and a voting Representative. (Even the license plates have the slogan "Taxation without representation.") Obama recently said that he's on board with this idea.

Home rule was seen as a harmless sop to the locals, that would not upset the applecart nationally. And except for gun control, generally it is. Remember that Congress can step in and legislate for the District whenever it wants to.

The other alternative would be for the federal government to retrocede most of the District to Maryland, just as it did with the Virginia part in the 1840's. All it needs to do is keep the "federal core" (the White House, the Capitol, and the area between them) as the national capital. Of course Maryland doesn't want this, nor do the local residents.

brickeyee
July 27, 2014, 03:09 PM
"Even the license plates have the slogan "Taxation without representation.""

Yep.
And despite their repeated call for a 'commuter tax' on anyone that works in the city but lives outside the city.

All for me, none for thee.

wojownik
July 27, 2014, 03:15 PM
Quick, everyone carry in DC! :D

I know you're kidding (maybe), but until all LE agencies have formally "gotten the memo", I'd have serious pause. And considering the number of LE entities in the DC to have duly notified, someone is likely to be left out of the loop. Gura says his feeling is that the order is in effect immediately, but due notice is required in the court order.

The AG's office was notified, but as of Sunday morning, MPD is still claiming not to have received formal notice (they weren't even aware of it last night). The FOP DC police union hasn't received any "official" guidance at all. (Which means both MPD and the police union are quite aware, but playing the "due notice" game).

I'm not overly optimistic. The court found that a "complete ban" was unconstitutional. That still leaves a lot of wiggle room for the city to eventually come back with highly restrictive carry regulations.

funklord12
July 27, 2014, 04:46 PM
I'd hate to carry in DC because it's such a hodgepodge of city and federal jurisdictions. One area might be U.S. Capitol Police, next one is DC Metropolitan Police, and another is U.S Park Police.

Pretty sure a CCW issued from the city will not trump any federal restrictions (i.e. taking a tour of the White House or Capitol.)

Sam1911
July 27, 2014, 05:08 PM
DC won't be issuing carry permits, as the court's order forbids them to enforce the law requiring one.

However, this ruling does not seem to directly contravene the federal law prohibiting carry in a federal building (where federal employees work). BUT, since the rule change a few years ago, carry in federal park land is governed by the law in whatever state the park is located in. So, with no anti-carry law in place in DC, you'd be fine to carry on the grounds of the Capitol, the Mall, around the memorials, etc.

jerkface11
July 27, 2014, 05:28 PM
We probably can't get them to pass a shall issue law. We can probably gridlock it and force permit less carry.

Sam1911
July 27, 2014, 05:38 PM
We probably can't get them to pass a shall issue law. We can probably gridlock it and force permit less carry.

Looks like the court cut right to the chase, there...

DC won't be issuing carry permits, as the court's order forbids them to enforce the law requiring one.

MErl
July 27, 2014, 06:04 PM
The question on issuing permits and who can carry is twofold.

Is that injunction solely because they were not issuing any permits? Should DC come back with an acceptable (to the court) permit process would that be lifted?

Does the DC possession permit become a carry permit, if not by name.

ConstitutionCowboy
July 27, 2014, 07:09 PM
I don't know for sure, but I don't think the premise of requiring a permit to carry has been challenged. If DC comes out with some sort of carry permit and it is onerous, that may be next up on the docket. (I can only hope!)

Woody

sauer1911
July 27, 2014, 08:35 PM
I hope I'm not wrong, BUT it seems the tide is turning, slowly but forcefully.

With the 2nd amendment foundation in the news, and commercials about the inability for citizens in Chicago and D.C. not being allowed to protect their families, and sadly a very poor performance over the past many years of the President on down thru a majority of his Democratic and a smattering of some Republicans, THERE WILL BE SOME CHANGES MADE.

Sadly we have to fight/legislate to get back our God given rights, but we will. The ebb and flow of things is gonna sweep back these restrictions on our rights and all will be better.

be safe

TMCCOY
July 27, 2014, 08:38 PM
This demonstrates the trend of our gov't and elected/appointed "officials" who do what they want w/o regard for law because they know it will be a long time if ever that their law get's overturned and they risk nothing for doing so. Try doing that in the private sector and see how quick you're fired and on the street.

jbrown50
July 27, 2014, 08:39 PM
DC will undoubtedly appeal the ruling but at least the five year hostage hold has been broken.

Field Tester
July 27, 2014, 11:46 PM
If this stands on appeal (which I doubt will happen), it's going to cause a security headache for the folks trying to guard the federal government activities and installations within the District. They're probably going to respond by declaring the "federal enclave" (the core area including the White House, the Capitol, the Mall, and all the surrounding government buildings and connecting streets) a gun-free zone, the same as a military base. In the meantime, the District government will enact a stringent licensing scheme that is, in effect, "may issue" verging on "no issue." And Congress will go along with this (regardless of its political makeup), because the Congresspeople value their personal security more than they do the pro-gun rhetoric that they spout for the benefit of their constituents back home. Call me cynical.
Interesting take and quite probable.

tyeo098
July 27, 2014, 11:50 PM
HOLY BALLS.

:what:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/t1.0-9/1459759_10203897239807268_8453176733346973842_n.jpg

At least until the injunction is filed tomorrow!!!

GlowinPontiac
July 28, 2014, 12:07 AM
I want to believe that this is possible but I wont until I see pictures of people with guns on their hips freely walking through DC.

I just cant see DC giving up and throwing in the towel this easily without trying to set up a NYC style permit system where its practically impossible for anyone to get a permit.

JTHunter
July 28, 2014, 12:29 AM
Politicians in Washington D.C. must be having heart attacks!

http://www.shootingtimes.com/2010/09/24/st_hellerwo_06262008/

https://suite.io/trenton-truitt/vch2xk

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071700689.html

:what::evil::neener::D:D:D

wojownik
July 28, 2014, 01:29 AM
As expected, the DC AG's office is going to seek a stay on Monday while the DC gov decides whether (how really) to appeal. The AG indicated that order is in effect immediately, but is also "promising" that this will be a very "short" effective period. FWIW, despite what Emily Miller tweeted, I heard from source on the force that MPD has not yet given its officers any instructions on not enforcing the law. At least not in his ward.

The AG's office continues to state the need for "protecting government officials and infrastructure" ... DC council officials are lambasting the judge as being "out-of'-state", a temporary appointee, and someone who doesn't understand particulars of DC's environment.

Judge Scullin's bio is worth a read - Army Ranger, Vietnam vet (173rd Airborne), organized crime prosecutor in both NY and Florida, appointed to the Federal bench, served on the FISA court for 7 years.

ljnowell
July 28, 2014, 02:02 AM
A lot of the naysayers should remember, all of those negative things were said about Illinois too. For example it will be no issue May issue or my favorite "mark my word no one will get to carry." We now have shall issue ccw and over 80k people already carrying legally.

RMc
July 28, 2014, 02:02 AM
It will be fought with much kicking and screaming and gnashing of teeth. Just like Chicago. I've always felt that if they truly believe that guns are so horrible and dangerous and evil then they should ban them all - from the police and the Secret Service and the military as well. No guns for anyone. They're just too dangerous to our society. Think of the children. It's not over yet. I would personally like to see the whole issue of requiring a "license" or "tax" or "fee" to exercise a Constitutional right addressed by the Courts.
Or any special tax placed on firearms or ammunition at any level of commerce.

Note: Special tax: Tax placed on specific items - not a general tax.

Sebastian the Ibis
July 28, 2014, 02:05 AM
Notice how Judge Scullin specified that this injunction applies to anyone who receives "actual notice" of the opinion. The opinion itself can be used as a CWP, because the carrier can provide the officer with "actual notice." While this won't make you popular with the police officer, it is "actual notice."

wojownik
July 28, 2014, 02:36 AM
I think we're just seeing some healthy pragmatism ... Alan Gura himself noted that he expects to see this issue back in court. Again, pragmatically speaking, this is another (big) step in a continuing process.

DC gov is again having a hard time swallowing the concept that they can't have a total ban. Remember, when the Supreme Court struck down DC's total ban on handguns, DC put together a pretty burdensome process for permitting and registering handguns.

Assuming this current court order is not overturned on appeal (or is upheld by the Supremes, if it eventually goes that high), I fully expect DC to put together an onerous process for DC carry permits and recognition of out-of-state carry permits.

Not a naysayer - but as a former DC resident (and NYC resident to boot), I've had some first hand experience with city gov and their shenanigans.


A lot of the naysayers should remember, all of those negative things were said about Illinois too. For example it will be no issue May issue or my favorite "mark my word no one will get to carry." We now have shall issue ccw and over 80k people already carrying legally.

Carl N. Brown
July 28, 2014, 07:21 AM
Let us not forget how Unconstitutional the philosophy behind gun control is and always has been.

Brief of Amicus Curiae submitted by Congress of Racial Equality in Support of Respondent, in the case of D.C. v Heller 2008. Lays out the history of gun control used as control of Black Americans.

Just one of many items cited: Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla. 516, 524, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (1941)
Justice Buford of the Florida Supreme Court noted in his concurring opinion narrowly construing a Florida gun control statute:
I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in the State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers .... The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied .... there has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people because it has generally conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and nonenforceable if contested.
Summary of Argument, folio 2, page 17 in
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_RespondentAmCuCongrRacialEqualitynew.pdf
accessed through American Bar Association blog

I found the link to the brief at ABA through the Bloomberg Law Supreme Court page (yes, that Bloomberg!). So this is not some rightwing link. And I will say that truth be known, the Florida statute not only discriminated against blacks, it affected primarily lawabiding blacks owning guns for traditional lawful purposes and had little or no effect on the criminal element.

But the key point is, as Justice Buford admitted in 1941, it was known that the 1893 Act was unconstitutional. What we saw in the 20th Century starting with the 1911 New York Sullivan Act and the efforts in the 1920s by progressive crusaders to promote a national version of the Sullivan Act, is a massive re-education campaign to transform public thinking on the Second Amendment from a "right of the people" to only an authority of the state to regulate an organized militia. Most gun control in the US since then has been built on a false theory and mistaken premise. If viewed constitutionally, all gun control laws but the few statutes aimed at criminal acts malum in se would fall.

Trent
July 28, 2014, 09:32 AM
Wait.

"Guns."

As in... ALL guns?

:evil:

JERRY
July 28, 2014, 09:45 AM
tagged for the latest.

Buzznrose
July 28, 2014, 09:54 AM
I hope I'm not wrong, BUT it seems the tide is turning, slowly but forcefully.



With the 2nd amendment foundation in the news, and commercials about the inability for citizens in Chicago and D.C. not being allowed to protect their families, and sadly a very poor performance over the past many years of the President on down thru a majority of his Democratic and a smattering of some Republicans, THERE WILL BE SOME CHANGES MADE.



Sadly we have to fight/legislate to get back our God given rights, but we will. The ebb and flow of things is gonna sweep back these restrictions on our rights and all will be better.



be safe


Good post! Yes, this is a long way from over, and the liberals won't go away easily. Most will depend on what SCOTUS judges BHO replaces, and who replaces him in the Oval Office.

AlexanderA
July 28, 2014, 10:10 AM
Gun law enforcement in the District of Columbia has always been somewhat strange. I once got a "get out of jail free" letter from the D.C. Metropolitan Police allowing me to bring an M60 machine gun into the District. (It's a long story.)

CoalTrain49
July 28, 2014, 10:14 AM
I would like to remind everyone that it was the Second Amendment Foundation that brought this suit. They could probably use your support. The NRA primarily works through the legislative branch, the SAF works through the judicial branch.

Ryanxia
July 28, 2014, 11:03 AM
This is excellent news. Even if it's still a long road ahead, it's forward progress.

Captains1911
July 28, 2014, 11:15 AM
I would like to remind everyone that it was the Second Amendment Foundation that brought this suit. They could probably use your support. The NRA primarily works through the legislative branch, the SAF works through the judicial branch.

Absolutely. I just sent them a little extra in addition to my regular contributions.

Sam1911
July 28, 2014, 11:27 AM
"Actual notice" eh? I know it is sorely ineffectual and largely a pointless gesture, but a am tempted to go do the national mall version of the "WalMart walk" before the dc gov gets their game on. Probably won't have many days to enjoy it before they find a new stalling tactic but, hey I know where the Chipotle's is!

Japle
July 28, 2014, 12:21 PM
Posted by CoalTrain49:
I would like to remind everyone that it was the Second Amendment Foundation that brought this suit. They could probably use your support.

Yep. I just sent them $100. They take PayPal.

ljnowell
July 28, 2014, 12:29 PM
I think we're just seeing some healthy pragmatism ... Alan Gura himself noted that he expects to see this issue back in court. Again, pragmatically speaking, this is another (big) step in a continuing process.



DC gov is again having a hard time swallowing the concept that they can't have a total ban. Remember, when the Supreme Court struck down DC's total ban on handguns, DC put together a pretty burdensome process for permitting and registering handguns.



Assuming this current court order is not overturned on appeal (or is upheld by the Supremes, if it eventually goes that high), I fully expect DC to put together an onerous process for DC carry permits and recognition of out-of-state carry permits.



Not a naysayer - but as a former DC resident (and NYC resident to boot), I've had some first hand experience with city gov and their shenanigans.


I agree, I expect them to come back with something ridiculous that will award politically connected people an easy permit and be totally corrupt.

I just hope that we can challenge those laws too. My point is though we need to be optimistic and remember that no matter what happens we made a sent in the armor.

usmarine0352_2005
July 28, 2014, 05:42 PM
Not sure if the author is correct that the recent DC gun ruling creates National CCW Reciprocity.




Can anyone answer this?




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/dc-concealed-carry-guns_b_5626590.html





DC Court's Concealed-Carry Ruling Is Big Win for the NRA


Mike Weisser
Posted: 07/28/2014 10:13 am EDT


The judge not only ordered the District to stop enforcing its concealed-carry ban, but also ordered the District to stop enforcing the same ban against non-residents who want to travel through DC while carrying a gun. This is because one of the plaintiffs, Edward Raymond, was a resident of Maryland and held a concealed-carry permit from his state of residence but did not have any legal authorization to carry a gun in DC. Nevertheless the District Court noted that, "the District of Columbia may not completely bar him, or any other qualified individual, from carrying a handgun in public for self-defense simply because they are not residents of the District."

Wow! Talk about a gift. If this ruling is not challenged and overthrown, Palmer vs. DC paves the way for the gun lobby to get what it has always wanted, namely, national concealed-carry without having to pass a federal law at all.

Every year pro-gun senators and congressmen routinely file bills that call for a reciprocal concealed-carry, much in the same way that a driver's license issued by any one state is valid in every state jurisdiction in the land. Such laws have never gotten to the floor of either chamber for a vote, but Judge Scullin's decision may nullify the need to travel down this legal avenue any more.

30 cal slob
July 28, 2014, 05:42 PM
This was the communication from the top to the rank and file MPD yesterday.

Enjoy. :)

http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/07-137-14.pdf

wally
July 28, 2014, 05:44 PM
We can only hope, but DC is not a state so their "State's Rights" are limited.

usmarine0352_2005
July 28, 2014, 06:08 PM
The article also said this:



To date the SCOTUS has refused to resolve the disagreements between the different federal circuit courts over how far to extend 2nd Amendment guarantees.

But even if that bench remains silent, the decision by Judge Scullin to extend concealed-carry reciprocity to people who visit but do not live in DC could effectively make concealed-carry the de facto law of the land.




And this is what wiki says about McDonald v. Chicago:


District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.




So hopefully it does?

vamo
July 28, 2014, 06:47 PM
It would be nice but I do not believe it will be the case. All the decision says is they cannot completely prevent non-residents from carrying guns for self defense. Thats a far cry for national reciprocity. What I imagine will happen is if and when DC creates its own permit it will have to also be available to non-residents.

ilbob
July 28, 2014, 07:08 PM
§ 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.

§ 22-4502. Additional penalty for committing crime when armed.

(a) Any person who commits a crime of violence, or a dangerous crime in the District of Columbia when armed with or having readily available any pistol or other firearm (or imitation thereof) or other dangerous or deadly weapon (including a sawed-off shotgun, shotgun, machine gun, rifle, dirk, bowie knife, butcher knife, switchblade knife, razor, blackjack, billy, or metallic or other false knuckles):

It appears that the DC code includes a fair number of things other than handguns as "deadly or dangerous weapons".

Are all these things considered OK now?

steve4102
July 28, 2014, 07:17 PM
I believe the ruling specifically stated "Handguns", so I would say, No.

Midwest
July 28, 2014, 07:18 PM
I need to address some of this

Not sure if the author is correct that the recent DC gun ruling creates National CCW Reciprocity.

While a National CCW Reciprocity sounds like a great idea. The idea of the Feds running it (ruining it) is not a good idea. Right now the individual states themselves set reciprocity. And that may sound like "it is not good enough". I think leaving it to the states is the best way. Maybe I am looking at this this wrong. Tell me why.

Wow! Talk about a gift. If this ruling is not challenged and overthrown, Palmer vs. DC paves the way for the gun lobby to get what it has always wanted, namely, national concealed-carry without having to pass a federal law at all.

If it can be done without the Feds getting involved. I would like to know more about it. Right now in some states (like Kentucky) we can open carry without a permit. And we can also go to some other states and open carry without a permit.

I don't want this to end up that everyone will need a carry permit to even open carry. Or worse, require permit to carry in Vermont, Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming This is why we have to be careful for what we wish for.

We can only hope, but DC is not a state so their "State's Rights" are limited.



Has anyone here heard that Obama is in favor of DC becoming a state?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/obama-on-dc-statehood-im-for-it/2014/07/21/86536f3a-110d-11e4-9285-4243a40ddc97_story.html

If DC does become a state, would the recent ruling transfer over? Or will they start from scratch and just end up as another NJ or MD ?


What I imagine will happen is if and when DC creates its own permit it will have to also be available to non-residents.

Would this force other states like New York, California and other states to issue non-resident permits or grant reciprocity?

Lot of questions and concerns............

.

Midwest
July 28, 2014, 07:24 PM
Has anyone here heard that Obama is in favor of DC becoming a state?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/obama-on-dc-statehood-im-for-it/2014/07/21/86536f3a-110d-11e4-9285-4243a40ddc97_story.html

If DC does become a state, would the recent ruling also transfer over? Or will DC start their firearms laws from scratch (because they would be a new state) and just end up as another NJ or MD with lack of gun rights?

Maybe the Prez saw this coming down the pike and that is why he said that statement. Maybe that is why there isn't a bigger uproar over this? Because DC will become a state?

.

vamo
July 28, 2014, 07:42 PM
Would this force other states like New York, California and other states to issue non-resident permits or grant reciprocity?

Sure, depends on if this ruling has broad or narrow implications though.

Also, just because a state is may issue doesn't mean it is not legally possible for a non-resident to get a permit. Of course just because it is legally possible doesn't mean it will get issued in practice.

ilbob
July 28, 2014, 07:43 PM
I believe the ruling specifically stated "Handguns", so I would say, No.
the chief's order says nothing about it applying only to handguns. it says 22-4504(a) is not to be enforced.

tyeo098
July 28, 2014, 07:46 PM
the chief's order says nothing about it applying only to handguns. it says 22-4504(a) is not to be enforced.
Youre wrong.

http://mpdc.dc.gov/release/possession-firearms-district

Sam1911
July 28, 2014, 07:59 PM
If DC does become a state, would the recent ruling also transfer over? Or will DC start their firearms laws from scratch (because they would be a new state) and just end up as another NJ or MD with lack of gun rights?Unless the new State of DC was somehow moved out of the court district where this ruling was handed down, the ruling would still apply.

DC the state would have to proceed with trying to work with or around that ruling just the same as DC the District will.

HexHead
July 28, 2014, 08:09 PM
While a National CCW Reciprocity sounds like a great idea. The idea of the Feds running it (ruining it) is not a good idea. Right now the individual states themselves set reciprocity. And that may sound like "it is not good enough". I think leaving it to the states is the best way. Maybe I am looking at this this wrong. Tell me why.

The Feds do not have to regulate national reciprocity of handgun permits any more than they regulate reciprocity for driver's licenses or marriage licenses. There's no reason they shouldn't fall under the "full faith and credit" those other licenses do.

Midwest
July 28, 2014, 08:10 PM
Sure, depends on if this ruling has broad or narrow implications though.

Also, just because a state is may issue doesn't mean it is not legally possible for a non-resident to get a permit. Of course just because it is legally possible doesn't mean it will get issued in practice.
While NY State does issue gun permits to out of state residents who have businesses in New York State. That is still a far cry from reciprocity.

http://www.usacarry.com/new_york_concealed_carry_permit_information.html


"Issuing Authority:
Licensing Officer of the City or County where the applicant resides, is principally employed, or where his principal place of business as a merchant or storekeeper is located."

.

Sam1911
July 28, 2014, 08:17 PM
Now the interesting thing, to me, is that since this is merely an injunction against enforcing a law prohibiting carry, (to state the obvious) it ISN'T a law governing carry.

That means that aside from the federal laws pertaining to federal buildings occupied by federal workers, there's no list of prohibited places and I'd assume rather a wide open clean slate regarding all sorts of other carry laws. Since they've hand no lawful carry, they haven't written that you can't carry in a bar, or a church. As one example, probably don't (???) have a specific charge for possession of a gun while drinking, or on "posted" private property, since up until now possession of a gun AT ALL would be a felony.

One thing to be exceptionally careful about is GFSZA. That could be an absolute KILLER. As you can't possibly have a permit to carry issued by DC that qualifies you to carry within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school, you would be violating GFSZA if you do.

And you can rest assured that there are a LOT of schools in DC. And you can visualize that when you're on a random city street you're almost always within 1,000 feet of hundreds of things you don't know of or suspect are there. Like schools.

Now, I have to imagine that probably about 0.01% of DC cops have ever heard of GFSZA, and even fewer would have any better idea than you do that you happen to be standing 937' from Ms. Crabopple's second grade class held in the basement of the local Catholic Church. (And the Chief's instruction sheet did not bring up GFSCA as a useful "gotcha!")

But if they really wanted to HURT people who dared carry in the District, that would sure be a way to do it.

If you're going to carry, try your darnedest to figure out ahead of time how to avoid school grounds.

pendennis
July 28, 2014, 08:22 PM
Sure, depends on if this ruling has broad or narrow implications though.

Also, just because a state is may issue doesn't mean it is not legally possible for a non-resident to get a permit. Of course just because it is legally possible doesn't mean it will get issued in practice.
The "full faith and credit" clause is subject to interpretation by Congress. Without a clear majority in both houses, it's doubtful that any reciprocity law could be enacted. The current President would surely veto any law liberalizing concealed carry.

And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

usmarine0352_2005
July 28, 2014, 08:27 PM
What if it wasn't about granting CCW licenses to out of state residents and was more like a drivers license.


If you can legally carry you just pass thru with your license and don't have to have an actual license from another state?

Midwest
July 28, 2014, 08:34 PM
Thanks for the reminder and warning about the Gun Free School Zones.
.

Sam1911
July 28, 2014, 08:41 PM
I don't see anything that the Judge wrote as guaranteeing some kind of seamless national reciprocity. Rather simply that states (IN HIS DISTRICT) must have some provision for issuing permits to non-residents.

If DC does become a state, would the recent ruling transfer over? Or will they start from scratch and just end up as another NJ or MD ?Whether or not DC ends up as a state, it will have to abide by the ruling issued by this federal district judge (unless DC the state were moved out of that district). DC the District or DC the State can certainly try to pass a carry permit law that meets the letter of the judge's ruling. Now, what will be a sticky wicket is that the judge specifically forbade enforcing the District's no-carry-without-a-permit-law, so exactly how they'll phrase their next attempt in order not to directly violate his edict remains to be seen.

What I imagine will happen is if and when DC creates its own permit it will have to also be available to non-residents.
IF DC can figure out a way to write a permit law that does not directly conflict the the judge's enjoining of the District from enforcing their permit-carry law, then yes. But DC may not be able to wriggle so cleverly as to get around that ruling.

They may just have to directly appeal it, and then hope SCOTUS will hear it and agree with their position.

Would this force other states like New York, California and other states to issue non-resident permits or grant reciprocity?Only if they're in the same federal district. (So NY, yes, CA no.) Only if appealed to (and won at) the SCOTUS would the ruling apply nationwide.

Sam1911
July 28, 2014, 08:42 PM
What if it wasn't about granting CCW licenses to out of state residents and was more like a drivers license.


If you can legally carry you just pass thru with your license and don't have to have an actual license from another state?That would be wonderful. But that's not federal law, simply a "gentlemen's agreement" between the states. If they were so inclined, they could agree to that today.

wojownik
July 28, 2014, 09:31 PM
So, as expected, DC sent in their request for a stay, pending appeal or for 180 days.

Reading over the instructions to the MPD, Chief Lanier lays out some scenarios:

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.

So, extrapolating from Scenario 2, won't this likely drive a practice that the police will likely record "any relevant information for potential further investigation" of anyone encountered with a firearm.

Then, is DC likely to maintain a database of all individuals encountered with firearms, legally or illegally?

This would appear to go beyond "stop and identify" (even though DC has no stop and identify laws on the books, MPD is pretty well known for hauling folks in if they cannot/will not produce ID) ...

Also uncomfortable is that - even though the court order declared a ban on carry unenforceable - MPD is still approaching carry as something to stop people (and no clear guidance as to whether this is a brief "Terry stop" or something more approaching an invitation to look for probable cause. .

BTW, I had a very pleasant late lunch in DC today ;) ;)

mgkdrgn
July 28, 2014, 10:02 PM
Sam1911 So are you saying you expect them to ignore the court's order? Or just that they'll harass with other charges?

My guess would be both, actually.

And they will appeal this court ruling (already filed) until the last taxpayer dollar is spent and beyond.

We are -years- away from having this "resolved", if ever.

gun_with_a_view
July 28, 2014, 10:04 PM
There's lots of buzz hereabouts concerning CCW permits. Even the judge injected some dicta on it in his opinion. It's all a little premature, as they may be unconstitutional.

Sam1911
July 28, 2014, 10:33 PM
My guess would be both, actually.Well, at the least they did NOT simply ignore the judge's order! In fact, the Chief's notice to her officers reads more like the most straight-ahead conformity with his ruling we could hope for.

Now DC gov may succeed in reigning that back in, but if she's willing to jump at his order, it doesn't look like we'll much have to worry that the police will ignore the court.

barnbwt
July 29, 2014, 12:29 AM
Those scenarios above are almost comical; doesn't the 14th say something about enforcing laws against some citizens but not others? Only those living within DC (*cough* --the ghettos-- *cough*) must have the unobtainable possession licenses? Talk about your Jim Crow. Which might actually explain why they've been so agreeable about this development so far; they can still nail the people who 'deserve it' if they carry guns for themselves.

One scenario I like to fantasize about is that the DC police are attempting to illicit "blood in the streets" by strictly complying with this flagrantly reckless and insane ruling (;)), only to cause the largest month-over-month drop in attacks on tourists and visitors ever seen (sadly, likely with a corresponding rise of targeted attacks on the disarmed neighborhoods, but maybe not). We are starting to see something like this in Detroit, so far this year, so maybe miracles can come true (one or two more and Gura can probably be canonized :D)

TCB

Sam1911
July 29, 2014, 12:33 AM
Only those living within DC (*cough* --the ghettos-- *cough*) must have the unobtainable possession licenses?

Combined with the Judges ruling that they HAVE to give permits to (otherwise lawful) folks who say they want to own guns for carry, I'm not sure I see this like you do. More like DC's permits system just became "shall issue."

tyeo098
July 29, 2014, 12:40 AM
Well since I live within spittings distance of that cesspool...

Why not? Seems the police chief had a word out we would be there...

http://i.imgur.com/0PB8od6l.jpg

The only cop we say immediately turned their lights on and reversed at full speed.
Then got out and ran into a pizza place. Came out 5 mins later w/ pizza and left.

Oh well. I was hoping to get a pic w/ da po-po.

Sam1911
July 29, 2014, 07:38 AM
You know, it would be awfully cool to have the 1st Annual THR Meet & Greet on the National Capitol Mall...

swinokur
July 29, 2014, 07:50 AM
Here is the relevant portion of the MPDC order. Look at the third paragraph. If you are not prohibited in your home state-DC says you're legal. The ammo ban only applies to DC residents. A couple of guys I know OC'd yesterday on the Mall near the Washington Monument. Gura says he's ok with a 90 day stay but not 180 days. I believe he has until August 4th to reply to the city's planned request for a stay.

Carry on NPS property is ok because NPS units follow the law of the jurisdiction they are in-so for now OC and CC on NPS property seems legal.

IANAL.

Sam1911
July 29, 2014, 08:15 AM
Gura says he's ok with a 90 day stay but not 180 days. I believe he has until August 4th to reply to the city's planned request for a stay.Ok, we need to be VERY careful to keep track of that. If the District is granted a stay and their laws go back into effect, even temporarily, somebody's likely to get really fouled up if they're celebrating DC's new openness a day too late...

ilbob
July 29, 2014, 08:42 AM
Youre wrong.

http://mpdc.dc.gov/release/possession-firearms-district
It appears a revised order has been issued.

swinokur
July 29, 2014, 08:58 AM
Absolute true. Gura posted on his blog he is concerned that he sometimes cannot post to his blog in real time and if a stay is granted and the ruling temporarily suspended, some folks could get caught in DC and be locked up. Be very careul as Sam points out.

glennv
July 29, 2014, 09:17 AM
Now the interesting thing, to me, is that since this is merely an injunction against enforcing a law prohibiting carry, (to state the obvious) it ISN'T a law governing carry.

That means that aside from the federal laws pertaining to federal buildings occupied by federal workers, there's no list of prohibited places and I'd assume rather a wide open clean slate regarding all sorts of other carry laws. Since they've hand no lawful carry, they haven't written that you can't carry in a bar, or a church. As one example, probably don't (???) have a specific charge for possession of a gun while drinking, or on "posted" private property, since up until now possession of a gun AT ALL would be a felony.

One thing to be exceptionally careful about is GFSZA. That could be an absolute KILLER. As you can't possibly have a permit to carry issued by DC that qualifies you to carry within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school, you would be violating GFSZA if you do.

And you can rest assured that there are a LOT of schools in DC. And you can visualize that when you're on a random city street you're almost always within 1,000 feet of hundreds of things you don't know of or suspect are there. Like schools.

Now, I have to imagine that probably about 0.01% of DC cops have ever heard of GFSZA, and even fewer would have any better idea than you do that you happen to be standing 937' from Ms. Crabopple's second grade class held in the basement of the local Catholic Church. (And the Chief's instruction sheet did not bring up GFSCA as a useful "gotcha!")

But if they really wanted to HURT people who dared carry in the District, that would sure be a way to do it.

If you're going to carry, try your darnedest to figure out ahead of time how to avoid school grounds.

Does DC have it's own version of the Clintonian GFCZA? The federal GFCZA was challenged and as long as what you're complying with local law you're good to go. I wouldn't know since you can carry in a school where I'm from .

Sam1911
July 29, 2014, 09:26 AM
Glennv, the original GFSZA was challenged and ruled against by SCOTUS. It was amended and put back into effect in 1996. In amended form it is still the law of the land, applicable in all states and the District.

(So in your state, according to federal law, no you can't carry in a school unless you have a permit or license issued by your state that authorizes you to do so.)

swinokur
July 29, 2014, 10:11 AM
DC has requested a 180 day stay. Gura says he's ok with 90, but not 180. I assume he'll oppose it based on that.


http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/dcs-request-to-stay-the-handgun-carry-ban/1156/

627PCFan
July 29, 2014, 10:27 AM
I've already seen pics of some folks from NOVA walking on the mall, handgun OC and no reports of anything negative. We will see what today holds.

tyeo098
July 29, 2014, 10:43 AM
Everyone should mass email Gura and tell him that people have started celebrating by carrying into DC.
Allowing a stay now could easily cause some people to be arrested.

Does Gura grant the stay or the judge?

ilbob
July 29, 2014, 10:46 AM
Everyone should mass email Gura and tell him that people have started celebrating by carrying into DC.
Allowing a stay now could easily cause some people to be arrested.

Does Gura grant the stay or the judge?
Gura has no power to issue a stay or not issue one. It is up to the court.

mass emailing Gura is a really dumb idea.

tyeo098
July 29, 2014, 10:47 AM
Gura has no power to issue a stay or not issue one. It is up to the court.

mass emailing Gura is a really dumb idea.
Doesn't he have to accept the terms though? Or at least have some input?

What do YOU suggest we should do then? Aside from bend over and hope for the best.

swinokur
July 29, 2014, 10:50 AM
Everyone should mass email Gura and tell him that people have started celebrating by carrying into DC.

Allowing a stay now could easily cause some people to be arrested.

Gura is keenly aware of this and stated as much on his blog and said he sometimes cannot update the blog in real time, so he cautioned people on what might occur.

Like being knowledgeable on carry laws in other states, it's not his responsibility to keep us updated. That's up to us.

I agree mailing him is a really bad idea. his plate is too full already.

IANAL

swinokur
July 29, 2014, 10:54 AM
Doesn't he have to accept the terms though? Or at least have some input?

What do YOU suggest we should do then? Aside from bend over and hope for the best.

He is allowed to file a brief to oppose whatever DC requests. All parties must accept the Judge's ruling on a stay.

It's not up to us. Everyone waits and sees what the Judge rules. It's out of everyone's hands until the Judge decides on whether to grant a stay. If he denies, DC can and mist likely will go to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and ask them to stay the order while the apppeal is in progress. That's all we can do. We're spectators here. All my supposition of course.

IANAL

Sam1911
July 29, 2014, 10:55 AM
There's really nothing WE can do to influence the process at this point. A polite thank you to Mr. Gura for his work would not be inappropriate, or better yet, a donation to SAF.

There are many factors involved in granting or denying a stay, reasons for and against, but I doubt that "folks are celebrating and might get arrested if the law goes back into effect" is going to be a compelling one to the judge.

Honestly, a whole lot of people showing up in downtown DC with openly carried firearms may be a fun thing to imagine, but it probably would have a whole lot more negative repercussions than positive ones. This is one of those things that probably should be played real cool. Descending on DC like a victorious invading army, rubbing their noses in it, is not really going to make the transition smooth and easy -- which should be our goal.

swinokur
July 29, 2014, 11:02 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

THIS exactly.

We might be on the cusp of something great here if we play it smart. We want to convince people who might be fence sitters we are not the militant extremists many people view us to be IMO. Let's be good polite ambassadors for the 2A and we may well prevail. Then we can celebrate when it's finally decided.

Being a gracious victor is always better than gloating, especially since this is far from over. Things can go bad pretty quickly if we misstep.

We're being watched for sure.

Let's as the name says, take the HIGH ROAD.

My .02. YMMV

Sam1911
July 29, 2014, 11:21 AM
Just to flesh out my thinking there, it is clear that the DC Chief will play cool (at least initially) with the ruling if it stands. We really couldn't ask for a better set of marching orders for her officers than what she's given thus far.

However.

If "we" (the thousands of die-hard gun nuts in this area :)) are hyper obnoxious with our victory rallies, open carry marches, and especially if the less cautious of us get to posing for 'selfies' with our ARs on the Capitol steps next to a visiting bunch of suburban schoolkids... or heaven forbid breaking other laws or having an ND -- public pressure will ramp up to a degree that the Chief and her political bosses won't be able to ignore.

And that's when they'll start looking for any and all charges they can use to get gun carriers off their streets. Imagine if the Chief decides to issue her officers maps of their beats with all of the schools highlighted with 1,000' circles in red, with orders to arrest anyone with a gun who they find in them? Easy to do, and a totally legit arrest. And that's just one example.

Right now she seems to be letting things roll with the apparent intent of the judge (as near as we can tell). But we all should understand by now that, the way our system of laws is written, if there's enough desire to put a hurtin' on folks they can probably find a way.

It would be MUCH better to get a year or two out and look back and see that there were no big confrontations, no huge public battle, and the transition happened smoothly and (to whatever extent possible) quietly.

swinokur
July 29, 2014, 11:23 AM
GFSZA is a Federal statute. She'd have to go get US Marshals to arrest you.

j/k

good post Sam

tyeo098
July 29, 2014, 11:24 AM
Yeah, last thing we need is another Starbucks incident.

I tried to take my pictures as tame as possible.

Sam1911
July 29, 2014, 11:31 AM
Your pic looked like a very reasonable and responsible way to go about it, though I'd probably say that tens or hundreds of folks all OC-ing, even as positively as you were, might be pushing our luck.

But by far the real crash point is going to be the (almost inevitable) bonehead with his rifle out near the White House, or the hundreds of desperate MWAG calls when neck beard and shorty saunter into Union Station or whatever. It's almost guaranteed to happen, and it will NOT be good for us.

tyeo098
July 29, 2014, 11:37 AM
In the APB it specifically said rifles and shotguns are a no-go.

Sam1911
July 29, 2014, 11:41 AM
Whoops, missed the follow-up there. Honestly, for the time being that might be a blessing in disguise to our side. Eventually we'll want that gone, but there's some temporary good in it, I think.

ilbob
July 29, 2014, 11:56 AM
Doesn't he have to accept the terms though? Or at least have some input?

What do YOU suggest we should do then? Aside from bend over and hope for the best.
I think there is little we can do to affect any stay request in any positive way. It is not up for a vote from the Internet. it is solely a court decision, and properly so.

627PCFan
July 29, 2014, 12:05 PM
Just a reminder, Long guns in public are still illegal to carry in DC............

jbrown50
July 29, 2014, 12:44 PM
I think it's important to note that the injunction only applies to the carry ban on residents and non-residents. All other parts of the DC gun laws are still in effect such as the 10 round magazine capacity limit and what constitutes a machine gun.

DC is still working out the details and they should have some clearer direction out later this week. Apparently, the 10 round magazine capacity limit isn't being enforced for non-residents at this time but there could be important changes made even before the judge's ruling is made concerning a stay.

JERRY
July 29, 2014, 01:28 PM
even if for only a day, I never thought in my life time the right of the people to keep AND bear arms in wash d.c. would be possible.

Willie Sutton
July 29, 2014, 01:59 PM
You know, it would be awfully cool to have the 1st Annual THR Meet & Greet on the National Capitol Mall...


I would fly in from the west coast for that.....



Willie

.

swinokur
July 29, 2014, 02:59 PM
90 day stay granted. If you are in DC with your firearm-leave now!!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/29/federal-judge-grants-90-day-stay-dc-gun-case/

tyeo098
July 29, 2014, 03:11 PM
Bollocks. Oh well. Glad I visited while I could!

mgkdrgn
July 29, 2014, 04:17 PM
Here is the relevant portion of the MPDC order. Look at the third paragraph. If you are not prohibited in your home state-DC says you're legal. The ammo ban only applies to DC residents. A couple of guys I know OC'd yesterday on the Mall near the Washington Monument. Gura says he's ok with a 90 day stay but not 180 days. I believe he has until August 4th to reply to the city's planned request for a stay.

Carry on NPS property is ok because NPS units follow the law of the jurisdiction they are in-so for now OC and CC on NPS property seems legal.

IANAL.
PLEASE note the last 1/2 of the last sentence in this. (and by "this" I meant the police dept instructions)

".... but other charges may apply."

Trust me, you are going to get charged with something, and your gun will be confiscated (if you don't agree with that, then you'll be "resisting"). If you don't believe me, just go try it.

Sam1911
July 29, 2014, 04:26 PM
If you don't believe me, just go try it.Pssst... a bunch of guys HAVE been trying it. No charges yet.

But now we have to wait to see how things play out during the 90 day stay.

F-111 John
July 30, 2014, 08:06 AM
Delete

tyeo098
July 30, 2014, 10:31 AM
".... but other charges may apply."

Trust me, you are going to get charged with something, and your gun will be confiscated (if you don't agree with that, then you'll be "resisting"). If you don't believe me, just go try it.

Youuuuuu should read the whole thread

Well since I live within spittings distance of that cesspool...

Why not? Seems the police chief had a word out we would be there...

http://i.imgur.com/0PB8od6l.jpg

The only cop we saw immediately turned their lights on and reversed at full speed.
Then got out and ran into a pizza place. Came out 5 mins later w/ pizza and left.

Oh well. I was hoping to get a pic w/ da po-po.

Old Fuff
July 30, 2014, 12:55 PM
I have a feeling that they hope someone who is carrying does something stupid so that they can use it as ammunition in an appeal. What they need and want is incidents that will support an argument that the most restrictive controls are needed to insure public safety.

Unfortunately they're some that may provide them with what they expect. :banghead:

Sam1911
July 30, 2014, 01:12 PM
I have a feeling that they hope someone who is carrying does something stupid so that they can use it as ammunition in an appeal. What they need and want is incidents that will support an argument that the most restrictive controls are needed to insure public safety.

Unfortunately they're some that may provide them with what they expect.

That's EXACTLY why I'm about halfway relieved that they said it does not apply to long guns. If they said it was wide open you just know there'd be a delegation from one of our more exuberant groups with a busload of dudes with AR-15s and AKs heading into town to do their photo-op on the Capital steps. While someday I hope to be there myself, not this month, not this year. Take it slow, be gracious winners, and don't BLOW it.

tyeo098
July 30, 2014, 02:24 PM
Capitol grounds are 100% off limits. Its a felony to traverse said grounds while carrying.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/40/5104

Sam1911
July 30, 2014, 02:34 PM
Ahhh, so it would be good to have a map that shows the 1,000 radii around schools, AND the exact limits of the Capitol grounds.

AlexanderA
July 30, 2014, 03:04 PM
The D.C. City Council will probably copy Maryland's carry law. Which is to say, getting a permit will be practically impossible. "Things must change so that things can remain the same."

Sam1911
July 30, 2014, 03:43 PM
The D.C. City Council will probably copy Maryland's carry law. Which is to say, getting a permit will be practically impossible. "Things must change so that things can remain the same."

Hasn't that already been dealt with? I mean, folks ARE now able to register and/or purchase firearms in the District which was impossible now.

And the judge just said they cannot enforce the law that requires a separate permit to carry.

So, while it is a bit more of a pain for a District resident to own guns than it is for the rest of us, once they own them, they can carry them.

And the rest of us visitors are good to go...

ATLDave
July 30, 2014, 04:04 PM
NOT LEGAL ADVICE:

Sam, the judge's original order said that the current DC laws - which forbid carry and have no real mechanism for obtaining a permit allowing carry - cannot be enforced. The ruling said nothing about whether a narrow "may issue" law, as opposed to a "shall issue" law, would pass muster.

And, as of right now, the decision is stayed for 90 days. During which time DC will amend its laws (and perhaps be challenged again) or appeal or do both.

Sam1911
July 30, 2014, 04:31 PM
That's true. But it seems clear by the way things have been going for them that a prohibitively difficult process won't pass review.

ATLDave
July 30, 2014, 04:35 PM
Here's hoping. Given the views of this particular judge, a victory at the district court level on a permits-in-theory-only approach seems likely. But whether the circuit court would follow the 2nd or the 9th is harder to predict, perhaps.

CoalTrain49
July 30, 2014, 04:57 PM
You know, it would be awfully cool to have the 1st Annual THR Meet & Greet on the National Capitol Mall...

Be sure to take plenty of change.

gun_with_a_view
July 30, 2014, 05:02 PM
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

That passage from the decision (p.16) seemingly refers to a CCW permitting scheme. Whether one is constitutional or not remains an open question. But His Honor seems convinced from the outset that freedom from the existing laws, now stayed, hangs on getting a permit from the law.

mgkdrgn
July 30, 2014, 06:01 PM
Hasn't that already been dealt with? I mean, folks ARE now able to register and/or purchase firearms in the District

Register ... yes. I think the entire process takes about 3 days based on all the places you have to visit.

Purchase ... not so much. There are NO gun stores in the District, and the city council has made it quite clear that there will never be a gun store in the District as long as they draw breath.

You must purchase your gun elsewhere and have it transferred to you in DC via the ONLY FFL in DC that deals with the public. He is part time, and I think is currently working out of a District police station as he can't get approval for his "premises" anywhere else in the district.

Oh, and if I recall his transfer fee is North of $150.

AlexanderA
July 30, 2014, 06:46 PM
Maryland splits purchase/possession from carrying. These are two different permits, and the carry permit is "may issue" verging on "no issue." That is, the requisite "good and substantial reason" can almost never be documented. This scheme has apparently passed constitutional muster.

All the District needs to do is copy the Maryland scheme, and Judge Scullin's conditions can be complied with, while in substance nothing really changes. It appears that what really bothered Judge Scullin was that there was no permit procedure at all for carrying.

F-111 John
July 30, 2014, 07:26 PM
Maryland splits purchase/possession from carrying. These are two different permits, and the carry permit is "may issue" verging on "no issue." That is, the requisite "good and substantial reason" can almost never be documented. This scheme has apparently passed constitutional muster.

All the District needs to do is copy the Maryland scheme, and Judge Scullin's conditions can be complied with, while in substance nothing really changes. It appears that what really bothered Judge Scullin was that there was no permit procedure at all for carrying.
May Issue has been upheld in New Jersey and struck down in California. We're going to eventually see the Supremes weigh in on May Issue but it may be four years from now.

RetiredUSNChief
July 31, 2014, 08:38 AM
Imagine if the Chief decides to issue her officers maps of their beats with all of the schools highlighted with 1,000' circles in red, with orders to arrest anyone with a gun who they find in them? Easy to do, and a totally legit arrest. And that's just one example.

I have imagined this. And, despite a lot of online searching, I haven't found anything documentable on police agencies doing any kind of "1,000 foot traps" for people carrying weapons around school zones. I rather imagine that pretty much all issues with guns in such zones are on indesputable grounds. This way the question can never come up in court.

I imagine that if something like this were to actually happen, this could potentially open up a real can of worms for the government. The question which would come up would be HOW, exactly, any given citizen would know EXACTLY where this 1,000 foot boundary is without it being properly surveyed and posted. Not only is this boundary not known with ANY accuracy around ANY school, it's also even more difficult in cases where the various school properties that aren't immediately adjacent to some schools aren't really clear to the public.

Knowing what the gun laws say is the responsibility of every gun owner. Complying with said gun laws is likewise the responsibility of every gun owner. But if the police are going to press charges based on "surveyed maps", then the citizens must also have access to those same surveyed maps OR the boundaries must be clearly posted.

HexHead
July 31, 2014, 08:46 AM
They could issue rangefinders to the officers. < 333 yards from the school, you're screwed. Lot easier and probably cheaper than surveying and maps.

Midwest
July 31, 2014, 08:52 AM
I have imagined this. And, despite a lot of online searching, I haven't found anything documentable on police agencies doing any kind of "1,000 foot traps" for people carrying weapons around school zones. The question which would come up would be HOW, exactly, any given citizen would know EXACTLY where this 1,000 foot boundary is without it being properly surveyed and posted. Not only is this boundary not known with ANY accuracy around ANY school, it's also even more difficult in cases where the various school properties that aren't immediately adjacent to some schools aren't really clear to the public.

It is easy to fall into the 1000 foot zone as illustrated by this site.

"1,000 Feet is Further Than You Think"

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/zones/thousand_feet.html

"We set out to discover whether people can be seen 1,000 feet from a school under ideal circumstances. One author then stood on the school’s property line and took pictures of another author at various distances from the property. Each image at left is a closeup of the actual photograph at right. "



http://static.prisonpolicy.org/images/geographypunishment/w04_1000.jpg

.

RetiredUSNChief
July 31, 2014, 09:01 AM
DC is still going to tread softly, apparently.


Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier has since rescinded orders instructing officers not to make arrests in such cases.

“We must recognize that members of the public may not be aware that all firearms laws in the District are once again in effect,” she wrote in an updated order issued Tuesday. “Officers are reminded to handle all matters regarding firearms with caution.”


In otherwords, even though all the old laws are not back in effect for the immediate future, they intend to tread softly so as NOT to make things more difficult on themselves in the process.

How these matters are played out is like a game of chess...the goal is NOT to make a stupid move that will give your opponent an advantage that may end up costing you the game. If they come down hard on people and end up making more "clear cut" court cases that could go against them in the future, then they lose ground. If they play it right and don't cause waves, then they have time to work out alternate plans and possibly make a play in the appeals process.


What this means is that people like myself, who are legally allowed to carry in our home state, need to toe the line as well. We still have to respect the law, and right now that means we can't legally carry in DC until this latest maneuver is resolved, at the very least. OUR job is to play the game of chess smartly, too, and not give our opponents any advantage which could result in us losing the game.


Hang in there!

swinokur
July 31, 2014, 09:05 AM
MD law was settled in the 4 CA, not the DC Circuit. The apparent constitutionality of may issue applies to the 4CA ruling, of which DC is a not a part. DC is in the DC circuit. 4 CA rulings don't apply.

Judge Scullin applied 14A equal protection rules in the DC ruling, meaning DC cannot prohibit non DC residents from some kind of carry. His narrow ruling would prohibit a MD style may issue G&S scheme IMO.

And DC cannot enforce the GFSZA. it's a Federal statute. They could call US Marshals to arrest however. I don't see this happening. It is sometimes added on to other charges from what I've read.

IANAL but live 3 miles from DC.

From the ruling:

("The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government
even the Third Branch of Government the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the
right is really worth insisting upon

This seems to rule out a MD style requirement for Good and Substantial reason to carry.The right to self defense is all that's needed. That sounds like shall issue to me.

Trent
July 31, 2014, 09:14 AM
Still following this as it develops.

I love seeing pictures of armed folks in our capitol.

As the denizen of a recently-liberated state (IL), this is a nice feeling. :)

swinokur
July 31, 2014, 09:22 AM
I know a guy who carried on the mall at the Washington Monument-no issues. When this is decided,and if carry is allowed, the same rule will apply to NPS property in DC, ie the Mall, outside monuments etc. The exceptions will be where NPS employees are working.Carry in a monument or memorial wiill be banned if NPS employees are working in them., based on the statute.

IANAL

Sam1911
July 31, 2014, 09:56 AM
And DC cannot enforce the GFSZA. it's a Federal statute. Actually, I do believe ANY law enforcement officer can arrest for federal crimes. So I wouldn't count on DC not being able to do so.

swinokur
July 31, 2014, 09:59 AM
Could be.. I don't ever plan to be in a situation where I find out.

:uhoh:

RetiredUSNChief
July 31, 2014, 10:12 AM
And DC cannot enforce the GFSZA. it's a Federal statute. They could call US Marshals to arrest however. I don't see this happening. It is sometimes added on to other charges from what I've read.

Say WHAAAT?

If that were true, then this law would be TOTALLY unenforcable at all levels across the United States. No city, county, or state law enforcement agency would be able to enforce this.

Does this pass the common sense check? I think not.

Regardless...you are correct in not planning on being in a situation to find that out.

;)


yqyixwqiCag

jbrown50
July 31, 2014, 10:22 AM
MD law was settled in the 4 CA, not the DC Circuit. The apparent constitutionality of may issue applies to the 4CA ruling, of which DC is a not a part. DC is in the DC circuit. 4 CA rulings don't apply.

Judge Scullin applied 14A equal protection rules in the DC ruling, meaning DC cannot prohibit non DC residents from some kind of carry. His narrow ruling would prohibit a MD style may issue G&S scheme IMO.

And DC cannot enforce the GFSZA. it's a Federal statute. They could call US Marshals to arrest however. I don't see this happening. It is sometimes added on to other charges from what I've read.

IANAL but live 3 miles from DC.

From the ruling:



This seems to rule out a MD style requirement for Good and Substantial reason to carry.The right to self defense is all that's needed. That sounds like shall issue to me.
Yes.

The injunction states that while applying to register a firearm, when the plaintiffs entered "I intend to carry this firearm, loaded, in public, for self defense, when not kept in my home", their application to register was denied.

If DC's crafted carry law does not allow carry for self defense as a valid reason Judge Scullin will undoubtedly reject it.

He also cites Peruta vs. San Diego.

swinokur
July 31, 2014, 10:42 AM
Whether a local LEO can enforce a Federal regulation is from my reading, is also dependent on local laws as well. Not a blanket statement so I stand partially corrected.

fletcher
July 31, 2014, 08:48 PM
Regarding the GFSZA thing, I thought it didn't cause an issue most of the time because of the following:

(I) the Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation's schools by enactment of this subsection.

(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

(iii) that is—

(I) not loaded; and

(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;

(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;

(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or

(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.

Am I reading the wrong section of the law, or does this not leave it up to the states to determine whether or not firearms are permitted (and under what circumstances) within the 1000 foot radius? Granted in DC this could lead to some sketchiness. Has anyone made the case that a CHL meets the aforementioned requirement? Alternately, if no license is required for such possession in the jurisdiction (e.g. constitutional carry), would this also meet the requirement?

EDIT:

Under definitions for this section:

(2) The term "interstate or foreign commerce" includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).

Sam1911
July 31, 2014, 10:30 PM
GFSZA is not an issue for licensed carriers within the state that issued them that license IF the licensing process for that state meets the requirements listed.

So, if you are traveling in another state you are NOT exempt from GFSZA in that state unless you have a carry permit ISSUED BY that state. (Not just reciprocated/recognized by that state.)

So, if I'm in WV, I am not exempt from GFSCA even though I can carry in WV on my PA license.

Or, if you're a resident of a "Constitutional Carry" state like VT or AZ, you are NOT legal to carry to or within 1,000 feet of any school there, even though you don't need a permit to carry open or concealed anywhere (else) in the state. The fact that the state doesn't require permits doesn't exempt you from the federal law.

Likewise, unless you're a resident of DC, you will NOT be exempt from GFSZA while visiting the District, even if the Chief of police has issued an interpretation for her officers that says you are allowed to carry within the District on your home state's permit.

Note, she specified that all other firearms possession laws remain in effect. GFSCA is under that blanket of "all other" firearms possession laws.

Midwest
July 31, 2014, 11:48 PM
I'm sure this has been asked before. All these scenarios within 1000 feet of a school but not on school grounds.

Is there any cases of anyone being busted under the GFSZ but not on the actual school ground?

Anyone busted under the GFSZ from out of state with a carry permit?

I assume retired LEOs carrying under LEOSA are NOT exempt?

I'm sure all law enforcement (on duty) from another state (or Fed Leos) ARE exempt?

.

wildbilll
August 1, 2014, 02:38 AM
In the above quoted GFSZA text, remember that it requires that you knowingly violate. Signs would be needed to make you aware you are in many of these zones.

Field Tester
August 1, 2014, 03:45 AM
It is easy to fall into the 1000 foot zone as illustrated by this site.

"1,000 Feet is Further Than You Think"

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/zones/thousand_feet.html

"We set out to discover whether people can be seen 1,000 feet from a school under ideal circumstances. One author then stood on the school’s property line and took pictures of another author at various distances from the property. Each image at left is a closeup of the actual photograph at right. "



http://static.prisonpolicy.org/images/geographypunishment/w04_1000.jpg

.
I actually live within 1,000 ft of 4 schools. How does this work for residents leaving from and going to their residence?

Sam1911
August 1, 2014, 06:27 AM
In the above quoted GFSZA text, remember that it requires that you knowingly violate. Signs would be needed to make you aware you are in many of these zones.
Note that it actually says "knowingly possess" not "knowingly be within 1,000 feet."

You'd probably have to prove you didn't know you had the gun.

aeriedad
August 1, 2014, 09:12 AM
Note that it actually says "knowingly possess" not "knowingly be within 1,000 feet."

You'd probably have to prove you didn't know you had the gun.

I read it differently.

"(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone."

Kaeto
August 1, 2014, 09:14 AM
I've forgotten where I read it, but wasn't there a ruling that the states bordering on Mexico couldn't enforce Federal Immigration law with local or state police?

I think that ruling would apply to all federal laws. Federal police have to enforce Federal law.

Sam1911
August 1, 2014, 09:37 AM
I read it differently.Good point. (I'm a bit sleepy this morning.)

Hopefully it can be established that you didn't have reason to know you were in a school zone. Contestable, but something...

RetiredUSNChief
August 1, 2014, 11:01 AM
"(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone."

The deal here is Congress' ability to regulate matters in which interstate commerce is involved.

Name a firearm you own which has NOT traveled across state lines at some point in its history. I'm thinking you'd have a hard time doing that. For example, let's say you bought a Colt 1991A1 brand new back in 1991 in South Carolina (like me). The pistol was manufactured in Connecticut.

I own a Beretta, which are either made in Italy or Maryland.

My Remington, which made my 870, in in North Carolina.

Marlin is either Connecticut or North Carolina, depending on when the guns I own were made.

See where this is going?

RetiredUSNChief
August 1, 2014, 11:29 AM
I've forgotten where I read it, but wasn't there a ruling that the states bordering on Mexico couldn't enforce Federal Immigration law with local or state police?

I think that ruling would apply to all federal laws. Federal police have to enforce Federal law.

OK, I did some further research on the matter of state/local LEO enforcing federal laws. Some of my own beliefs were erroneous. I will defer to any LEO/attorney who has more knowledge on the matter, though.

In general, state and local LEO do not have the authority to enforce federal laws. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that they cannot arrest a person for violating a federal law. Lots of things to consider here.

- One is whether or not there is an analogous local or state law. If so, then local or state LEO will most certainly be empowered to enforce that law.

- A federal agency may ask a local/state agency to conduct an arrest. In such an instance, the local/state agency will then be empowered to do so.

- A local/state agency may choose to make an arrest for a federal violation. However, the matter would have to be turned over to the appropriate federal agency, which has the option of saying "yea" or "nay" to it. A scenario might mean a local LEO would arrest someone for a federal violation, but not be able to jail the individual unless the federal agency chooses to take the case. If the federal agency won't take the case, the individual can't be held...or the local LEO has to come up with a local/state citation he is empowered to enforce.

- Some local/state officers may be specifically empowered by the federal government to handle certain matters. Immigration would be an example where this happens.


NOW, here's where the rubber meets the road with respect to applicability to THR:

The GFSZA itself is a federal statute. However, if the state you reside in has also codified it, or portions of it, then the state has LEO's who are empowered to enforce those laws on the state level.

For example, SC code 23.31-215.M(8) says

"A permit issued pursuant to this section does not authorize a permit holder to carry a concealable weapon into a:

(8) place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law;"


If you violate the STATE statutes listed, including this one, state LEO's ARE empowered to enforce this and there is a STATE penalty:

"A person who wilfully violates a provision of this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, at the discretion of the court and have his permit revoked for five years."


So the state of SC, in my example, can effectively arrest you for violating the GFSZA because they made it a STATE CRIME to carry a gun anywhere the federal laws say you're not allowed.


If you were to be charged with the federal offense of violating the GFSZA, then the federal government would get involved in this and penalty would be:

"Whoever violates the Act shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term of imprisonment imposed under this paragraph shall not run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed under any other provision of law."

A conviction under these terms would constitute a felony conviction and you'd lose your RKBA for the rest of your life.


Big difference.


My thanks to the people who posted on the matter of local/state agencies enforcing federal laws. I learned a lot researching this.

wildbilll
August 1, 2014, 05:03 PM
In the above post re: SC GFSZ's that does look bad for a permit holder.
But it is still a State law violation, not the Federal law, as far as a SC permit holder is concerned.
I'd take the State rap over the Federal one any day.

If caught, I would argue that it says "into" a "place",
and if I were caught while outdoors in the street or sidewalk or shoulder of a road I would claim that I might have carried the gun "onto" those areas but it certainly wasn't "into".
If it were a fenced area, that might also be considered "into", but if I am on the open street or sidewalk I am not "in" any place.

swinokur
August 2, 2014, 06:05 AM
I did a little research too, although not as extensive. A local LEO can ARREST you for a Federal violation but it is up to the Federal prosecutor to decide whether to prosecute you. So DC police could ARREST you and then let the Feds decide whether to prosecute you. You could also be charged with both. You could be prosecuted twice, once for any local law violation and the the Federal violation, or vice versa, depending on when the prosecutors decide. I think that is handled on a case by case basis.

Obviously something was learned something in this thread. I know I did.

IANAL

Field Tester
August 23, 2014, 10:36 PM
Someone want to help me out with post #161 please?

RetiredUSNChief
August 23, 2014, 11:21 PM
Someone want to help me out with post #161 please?

Sure. This should help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990#Exceptions

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(B):

[18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A)] does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

(iii) that is—

(I) not loaded; and

(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;

(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;

(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or

(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.

Field Tester
August 24, 2014, 01:40 AM
Thanks Chief.
I still don't quite fully understand, please bear with me.
I understand possession, but specifically how does it relate to CCW?
By what's posted, if I obtain a CCW and I leave my home I cannot load the firearm until I am 1000 ft away from the schools? Common sense tells me I'm getting this wrong, so I want to understand and be clear.

It's subsection 3 points 1 & 2 that are confusing me.

I get that I can own, load and carry in my home without a CCW, that's a no brainer. But let's say I get my CCW. Because of my proximity to the schools, how would my carry routine go? I wake up, grab my daily carry and holster it and walk out the front door to my car to go to work. Am I now in violation of the law or am I exempt because I live within the 1,000 ft and I have no other way to CCW unless I load later? (which seems like it opens a whole new bag of worms, hence me not understanding)

Sorry if this is incredibly obvious to everyone else. I obviously haven't taken a CCW course and I'm sure I'd have all my questions answered there, this is just something I've never heard discussed before and I'm curious.

Thanks again Chief!

RetiredUSNChief
August 24, 2014, 06:49 AM
Thanks Chief.
I still don't quite fully understand, please bear with me.
I understand possession, but specifically how does it relate to CCW?
By what's posted, if I obtain a CCW and I leave my home I cannot load the firearm until I am 1000 ft away from the schools? Common sense tells me I'm getting this wrong, so I want to understand and be clear.

It's subsection 3 points 1 & 2 that are confusing me.

I get that I can own, load and carry in my home without a CCW, that's a no brainer. But let's say I get my CCW. Because of my proximity to the schools, how would my carry routine go? I wake up, grab my daily carry and holster it and walk out the front door to my car to go to work. Am I now in violation of the law or am I exempt because I live within the 1,000 ft and I have no other way to CCW unless I load later? (which seems like it opens a whole new bag of worms, hence me not understanding)

Sorry if this is incredibly obvious to everyone else. I obviously haven't taken a CCW course and I'm sure I'd have all my questions answered there, this is just something I've never heard discussed before and I'm curious.

Thanks again Chief!

Actually, the answer isn't "incredibly obvious", so no worries there.

Federal law leaves some of this up to the state. Take the part that says:

"if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license"

You need to read your state laws. I can tell you what South Carlina has to say, in part, with respect to this:

- "It is unlawful for a person to possess a firearm of any kind on any premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, other post-secondary institution, or in any publicly owned building, without the express permission of the authorities in charge of the premises or property. The provisions of this subsection related to any premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, or other post-secondary institution, do not apply to a person who is authorized to carry a concealed weapon pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23 when the weapon remains inside an attended or locked motor vehicle and is secured in a closed glove compartment, closed console, closed trunk, or in a closed container secured by an integral fastener and transported in the luggage compartment of the vehicle."

- Carry on roads adjacent to public schools are subject to this: ""For purposes of this section, the terms "premises" and "property" do not include state or locally owned or maintained roads, streets, or rights-of-way of them, running through or adjacent to premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, or other post-secondary institution, which are open full time to public vehicular traffic."


So, if I lived within 1,000 feet of any school property, the law doesn't say I cannot own or carry on my own property, nor that I cannot carry on my person or in my vehicle so long as I'm on state or locally owned roads or roads which may run adjacent or through public or private school properties which are open full time to public vehicular traffic.

What California says, however, may be a world apart from South Carolina.

wilbur2
August 25, 2014, 09:39 PM
I'd take the State rap over the Federal one any day.


The two aren't mutually exclusive. Trial on one doesn't preclude trial on the other. Double jeopardy doesn't apply to a federal prosecution following a state prosecution on the same offense. You could get convicted of both...

DC2
September 1, 2014, 12:49 AM
DC will appeal and will also have ready to pass in emergency session on deadline very stringent legislation that excludes reciprocity and mandates proven threats.

My prediction is the end result will be Bloomberg's private security will get to carry and zero John q Public will.

armoredman
September 1, 2014, 01:50 AM
That's possible, and we'll be back to court same as Chicago until the public gets tired of it and elects people with brains. Unfortunately, that is ALSO unlikely, so it will be one slow torturous step at a time.

wojownik
September 1, 2014, 03:39 AM
An appeal should be of no surprise. In fact 10 days ago, the DC Council Chairman stated that they will appeal the ruling. Frankly, I'd be shocked is DC .gov did not appeal. DC already filed a motion for reconsideration last week (on August 25th), attacking the legal premise of Scullin's ruling.

DC's line of argument is:

The Court unnecessarily determined that the right to carry a handgun in public is at the core of the Second Amendment, and failed to consider both the historical pedigree of prohibitions on public carrying and the District’s important justifications for its prohibition.

Basically, DC is arguing that the carrying of firearms is not covered by the Second Amendment, and that the carrying of firearms is at least not at the core of 2A.

Also, Phil Mendelsohn has noted that there's a "lot of gray area" between a 100% ban and letting everyone carry. He (and others) have noted the special circumstance of so many diplomats, elected officials and government workers in the city. I'd expect DC to follow MD's lead of "may issue" - meaning no issue.

If you enjoyed reading about "DC Carry ruling... finally" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!