CCW case filed in DC

[legaleagle_45]

The prohibition of CCW by law abidding citizens in DC was challenged in a lawsuit filed today in US District Court for the District of Columbia. Case name is PALMER, et al vs. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and CATHY LANIER.

Counsel of record?

Alan Gura.

 

[Phatty]

Do you have a link to the complaint?

 

[legaleagle_45]

There is no link.... DC has not even been served as of yet. I have read the complaint however and I am aware of what it contains. The guts:

11. The Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to carry
functional handguns in non-sensitive public places for purposes of self-defense.
12. The District of Columbia retains the ability to regulate the manner of carrying
handguns, prohibit the carrying of handguns in specific, narrowly defined sensitive places,
prohibit the carrying of arms that are not within the scope of Second Amendment protection, and disqualify specific, particularly dangerous individuals from carrying handguns.
13. The District of Columbia may not completely ban the carrying of handguns for
self-defense, deny individuals the right to carry handguns in non-sensitive places, deprive
individuals of the right to carry handguns in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or impose
regulations on the right to carry handguns that are inconsistent with the Second Amendment.

 

[calaverasslim]

Sorry to sound ignorant but who is Cathy Lanier?

 

[legaleagle_45]

"Defendant Cathy Lanier is the Police Chief of the District of Columbia’s
Metropolitan Police Department. Defendant Lanier is responsible for executing and
administering the District of Columbia’s laws, customs, practices, and policies at issue in this lawsuit; has enforced the challenged laws, customs and practices against plaintiffs, and is in fact presently enforcing the challenged laws, customs and practices against plaintiffs. Defendant Lanier is sued in both her individual and official capacities."

 

[mp510]

If this claim is successful, it will help bolster the significance of the "for traditionally lawful purposes" wording in the Heller decision greatly.

 

[Radagast]

Thanks for the heads up leagleeagle45. You just made my day.

 

[rDigital]

I hope this has legs.

 

[esquare]

Any more news on this? One would have thought there would be at least something by now to confirm? Anyway, I think it's a brilliant move. Since Heller upholds the 'keeping' part, it will be hard to reason that the 'bearing' part should only apply to private property unlike all other individual rights.

And, I bet some congressmen might have a change of heart about CCW when they get back from their August vacation - they just might start feeling that personal protection is not such a bad thing after all!

 

[gc70]

Here is the complaint in Palmer v. DC.

Heller was tightly focused on "keep arms" and Palmer is tightly focused on "bear arms."

 

[cindynles]

Here is the SAF news release:

http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=300

 

[Husker_Fan]

I'll get flamed for this, but I'm not to optomistic that the SCT will uphold CCW as a "traditionally lawfull purpose." I have a feeling they will look at the histroy of CCW laws back to the adoption of the BoR and come to a conclusion that will not be well received on this board.

 

[armoredman]

IF they look at CCW, which is NOT the only way to "bear" arms. Traditionally, open carry was normal and everyday after the Revolutionary War for many many years. Not until after the end of the Civil War did licenses and permits become popular, as the anti Negro Arms laws began. So, if they can look past the narrow focus of CCW only, and realize that, open carry included, lawful carrying of sidearms by American civilians has been a part of this culture far longer than not.
My $.02, worth what you paid for it.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Wasn't firearm possession restricted outside of homes in cities around the late 1700's?

 

[gc70]

I suspect Gura will address the issue in a way that DC won't like. Note that the basis for the case is the right to bear arms. But DC prohibits bearing arms without a concealed carry license, which DC won't issue. Thus, DC has taken away the traditional mode of open carry and requires concealed carry.

 

[esquare]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the reason people didn't carry 'concealed' in the 1700's was because there weren't many tiny handguns. Didn't the derringer come out in the mid 1800's?

I've also read that the certain cities had carry restrictions in the 1700's (like Philadelphia), but I'm not sure if that was a hold over from the British rule or not. The words of many of the founding fathers at least seem to convey that carrying a gun, concealed or not, was an individual right - it could have been that they didn't agree with the firearms policies of the cities back then either... just a thought.

 

[P.O.2010]

I wish Mr. Gura and the Plaintiffs well but I don't see this one turning out favorably for two reasons.

First, the likelihood that the Supreme Court would adopt Mr. Gura's position is minimal. We can be reasonably sure that Justices Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas would support our side but whether Justice Kennedy would or not is uncertain. As for the other four Justices, there's no way in heck that they will vote in our favor. I'd be interested to read Justice Sotomayor's dissent if we win. All of this, of course, assumes that the case makes its way to the SCOTUS and that the Justices decide to hear the case at all. It may well be a can of worms they don't want to touch for obvious political reasons.

Second, this case seems to accept the legitimacy of requiring a license or permit to carry a firearm in public. That's how it reads to me, anyway. The fundamental difference between a right and a privilege is that you don't have to ask anyone's permission to exercise a right. If you want to sit down on a park bench and pray the rosary you simply do it. You don't apply for a license to practice your religion in public. And you don't face a fine and/or imprisonment for possession of an unregistered religious instrument.

This case can go well for us or it can be a disaster for us and unfortunately I have to say that I think there is a much greater possibility of the latter.

In any event I wish Mr. Gura and the Plaintiffs luck. They'll need it.

 

[gc70]

First, the likelihood that the Supreme Court would adopt Mr. Gura's position is minimal.

Heller has established that the Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep arms. The Court would be very challenged to not apply huge parts of the Heller logic to the intervening words "and bear" in the Second Amendement. The question then becomes one of location and circumstances for bearing arms.

States have historically regulated concealed carry to a far greater extent than open carry. This would normally make a concealed carry case an uphill fight. The DC government could have outlawed both open and concealed carry and could have mandated carry in a locked container as some other jurisdictions do. But the DC government chose to outlaw open carry and instead require concealed carry. So the DC government has turned the tables and established concealed carry as the acceptable and preferred mode of bearing arms. The question then becomes how the DC government implements its mandate for concealed carry.

Heller attacked DC's registration law on the basis that DC required registration to "keep" handguns, but then refused to register any handguns. Parker attacks DC's carry law on the basis that DC requires concealed carry to "bear" arms, but then refuses to issue licenses for concealed carry.

If the Court finds that the Second Amendment contains an individual right to bear arms, the DC government has already defined how it wants people to bear arms.