DC Carry ruling... finally

Status
Not open for further replies.
BREAKING: DC’s Ban on Right To Carry Overturned

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

.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Just logged on to share the news, and see it's already been posted.

Nice news for a Saturday!


Willie

.
 
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.
 
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.
 
ClickClickD'oh said:
"May Issue" hasn't been doing so well in the courts either these days.
Click to expand...
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".
 
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.
Click to expand...

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, "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."
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
So are you saying you expect them to ignore the court's order? Or just that they'll harass with other charges?
 
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?
 
Last edited:
In their complaint, Plaintiffs assert two claims for relief. In their first claim, Plaintiffs allege that, "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

.
 
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.
 
Here's the actual decision. It can be appealed to the DC Circuit, but remember they are bound by their previous decision in Heller.
.
.
 

Attachments

  • DCT_OPINION.pdf
    149.2 KB · Views: 2
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Am I mistaken?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Gary Slider
  • Locked
NV Honors IL. . . DC Fed Judge Ruling . . . Handgunlaw.us DDoS Attack
Replies
1
Views
565
barnbwt
barnbwt
J
  • Locked
DC gun ruling is on 90 day hold, but prosecutors aren't enforcing carry ban
Replies
0
Views
526
jbrown50
J
I
  • Locked
Latest ruling from D.C.
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
wojownik
wojownik
danez71
  • Locked
Federal court strikes down DC anti-concealed carry law
Replies
20
Views
2K
Elkins45
Elkins45
U
  • Locked
D.C. gives up on ban on carrying guns in public
Replies
11
Views
1K
mgkdrgn
M
Back
Top