Federal court strikes down DC anti-concealed carry law

The saga continues. Small victor for the pro 2A side.

FYI


https://www.google.com/amp/thehill....court-strikes-down-dc-concealed-carry-law?amp

 

DC is a mini Chicago as far as crime goes!

 

Well, if there's a growing number of federal circuits who come to disagree whether "good reason" must exist for a CCW applicant, versus defaulting to a simpler "shall issue", at some point the right case may interest the SC in finally deciding the issue.

 

The decision in Wrenn came out in July.

Yesterday, Sept 28, DC Circuit declined DC's request for en banc rehearing.

 

Yes, right.

You know this stuff better than I,,,, That's what important about this as fastbolt's post points to the reasons.


Is this any more likely to get heard as compared to Peruta being with the split more apparent?

Is this a better case than Peruta?

 

In the previous carry cases sent up to SCOTUS for cert, the petitioning party was not the government. In this case, much like Heller, Washington DC would be the petitioning party. That is a significant difference.

Additionally, the Wrenn decision explicitly points out what it sees as flaws in the rulings of other circuits (yes, I understand that I'm picking single lines out of a larger narrative, but I don't think I've obfuscated the meaning of the whole):

Talk about a split between the Circuits! DC Circuit just re-affirmed that they meant what they said when they ruled that the other Circuits were full of it. Peruta was that split until the 9th turned it around en-banc, but now Wrenn has created a solid split and pointed it out explicitly.

So, unlike other cases sent to SCOTUS for cert... Wrenn addresses a blatant circuit split and the petitioning party would be the Government.

I'd give it good odds of being picked up... assuming DC rolls the dice. They may be a little gun-shy (excuse the pun) of sending something like this to SCOTUS after Heller though. Instead of it going to the SCOTUS, what you may end up seeing is a "shall issue" scheme that is so onerous in training requirements, so short in renewal requirements, and so prohibitively expensive that it is, in effect, a "no-issue" scheme. "Suuuuure, we shall issue a permit, that has to be renewed with proof of 100 hours of training each month. There will be a fee of $500 for initial issue and renewal (to cover our extensive costs, of course)."

 

Sources: DC Attorney General Won't Take Gun Law Appeal to Supreme Court

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...un-Law-Appeal-to-Supreme-Court-449515203.html

It'll be interesting to see how DC handles the process.

 

They gave up DC to avoid losing in SCOTUS, which could impact every "may issue" jurisdiction there is. They lost the symbolic city, and are gnashing teeth, but they gave up very little to what could have been lost. Now we'll see how DC handles it and I look forward to the stories.

 

Noted.

Since the law of the land (in DC) is now:

What actually constitutes the "typically situated citizen"? "Common arms"?

Can the "typically situated citizen" bear the burden of, say, $400 in costs and two working days (easily another $300 in lost wages) in classes as is the case in Illinois? Or is discrimination against those of lesser fortune OK? Does the typically situated citizen reside in DC, or are non-residents covered?

Does the Glock 19, arguably the most common handgun in the US today, with it's standard magazine fall under the purview of this decision?

 

I think DC has a ten round limit already for handgun mags. I will guess you will be correct and the cost will be even higher than that, just to make sure "the little people" stay unarmed, as only the elite should be defended, doncha know....

 

It is good to see that, for now, DC will not be changing their laws regarding carry permits with the exception of the good cause requirement: 16 hours of training, $75 for the permit, and $35 for finger prints.

Which leads me to a few questions, in case anyone knows the answers:

Now that DC is shall issue, and since I travel to DC regularly for work, I'd like to get the ball rolling on an out of state permit for myself.

1) Do I have to register my handgun in DC as a non-resident?
2) What portions of the training can be waived by providing a hunting licence and/or marksmanship qualification in the Navy, as listed in the instructions linked in the quote above?

 

Concealed Carry application and instructions: https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/applying-license-carry-handgun

You will have to get D.C. specific training from someone on the D.C. approved trainers list. As an out of District resident, it will help if you have a carry permit from your home state, but you will still need to receive training from an approved instructor.

Approved Instructor list: https://mpdc.dc.gov/node/1069042

You can have the training portion waived only if the Chief of Police agrees that your training meets or exceeds the training requirements specified by the District:

2336.3 The Chief may, on a case by case basis, exempt a person from the requirements of §§ 2336.1 and 2336.2 if the person submits evidence that he or she has received firearms training in the U.S. military or has otherwise completed firearms training conducted by a firearms instructor that, as determined by the Chief, is equal to or greater than that required by the Act.

2345.2 A non-resident may satisfy some or all of the firearms training requirements in § 2336 by providing proof of completion of a firearms training course in another state or subdivision of the United States.

2345.3 A non-resident shall obtain a certification from a firearms trainer that the applicant has received and completed training in District firearms law and the District law of self-defense.​

You will need to register at least one handgun with the District that you intend to carry within the district.

Registration procedures: https://mpdc.dc.gov/node/763182

Full District concealed carry statute: https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/page_content/attachments/DC Regulations for Licenses for Concealed Pistols_through August 25 2017.pdf

If you have questions you can call the Firearms Registration Section at (202) 727-4275.

 

D.C. also severely restricts how much ammunition a licensee can carry.

2343.1 A person issued a concealed carry license by the Chief, while carrying the pistol, shall not carry more ammunition than is required to fully load the pistol twice, and in no event shall that amount be greater than twenty (20) rounds of ammunition.
​

So a Glock 26 and one spare magazine is the maximum. Heaven forbid if you decide to carry a Bond Arms derringer. You get to carry a total of four rounds.

 

I’m likely going to be moving to Northern Virginia sometime in the next year to eighteen months. Once I get there I plan to apply for a DC non-resident permit. Most of my family is there (one of my brothers actually lives in DC, at present his guns are at our mom’s house in Fairfax). I generally only go into DC when I am there to visit places I couldn’t take a gun anyway, but once I live there making sure I don’t run afoul of the law by driving into DC will be important.

I suppose I will have to carefully choose a couple of guns to register in DC that meet their restrictions. I don’t generally carry more than one spare magazine but I do carry a backup gun pretty regularly. That isn’t allowed in DC either, so it will take some planning. I’m thinking something like a XDS 9mm with 8 shot magazine in gun an a 9 round magazine as a backup might fit the bill.

 

That is not quite correct. § 22–4502.01(a) creates gun free zones as described below (1000 foot buffers around schools, universities, public housing, public swimming pools; playgrounds, public libraries, youth centers, day care... ) , but this is an "enhanced penalty" for illegally carrying a gun. Basically up to 90% of DC is a gun free zone.

HOWEVER, § 22–4502.01(c) explicitly says that "(c) The provisions of this section shall not apply to a person legally licensed to carry a firearm in the District of Columbia who lives or works within 1000 feet of a gun free zone or to members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps of the United States; the National Guard or Organized Reserves when on duty; the Post Office Department or its employees when on duty; marshals, sheriffs, prison, or jail wardens, or their deputies; policemen or other duly-appointed law enforcement officers; officers or employees of the United States duly authorized to carry such weapons; banking institutions; public carriers who are engaged in the business of transporting mail, money, securities, or other valuables; and licensed wholesale or retail dealers."

So this gets confusing, and there's not a lot of case law yet on this. It seems clear that you can lawfully carry in a gun free "buffer" zone, but only if you are licensed, AND only when you are at your home or place of work within that buffer zone.

Which means you can't carry outside of your home or work (e.g commuting??) while transiting through a gun free zone that surrounds you. And you can't carry in a buffer zone if you done live or work there.

This is a very big point in DC. I did a quick estimate of gun free zones only around daycare, elementary and high schools in an selected area of NW DC (North G'town all the way up to Friendship Heights). These buffer zones make the carry permit essentially a moot point, IMHO. Just these school areas lock up huge parts of DC

Universities would add massive additional chunks to map below (American Univ, Georgetown, UDC would add much of the rest of NW DC ... Playgrounds and other zones would fill in pretty much most of the remainder of NW DC ... So you may get a carry license in DC, but it isn't going to let you carry very much in practice. Maybe not even as far as beyond he edge of your own sidewalk if you live within one of these many, many gun free zones.



Admittedly, these highlight just the daycare centers I know about. I'm sure there are many, many more licensed daycare facilities that fill up this map even more.

And one more funky point are the schools/daycare centers that sit on the MD/DC border. Could they creep the law to claim a buffer zone in DC around a school that is near but across the DC in MD? Sounds like tin foil, but this is DC govt of course ...

 

^^^^^^ This appears to be one of those things that will have to be litigated. Just another example of setting up a system of rules that has the practical effect of making legal carry impossible.