Palmer v. DC

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HE Pennypacker

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2010
Messages
1
Hey everyone. This is my first thread on this awesome site.

I live in a state with very reasonable gun laws (shall-issue) and have a CCW permit. I'm going to be moving to Washington, DC fairly soon. As you know, they've got the most restrictive gun and weapon laws in the nation. Effectively, you're not allowed to protect yourself against criminals who know you're unarmed and easy pray.

I've been doing my research, though, and trying to remain hopeful that their laws will become less draconian in the future. I know Heller was a landmark case, and it finally allows DC residents to own guns and keep them in their homes. Carry is still illegal, but I ran across this case, Palmer v. DC. http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Palmer_v._District_of_Columbia

Does anyone know the current status of the case? Or, for that matter, any other cases making their way through the courts? I'm really hoping that DC (and other restrictive jurisdictions) will allow some form of concealed carry soon.
 
Some of us thought the opinion should have been released sometime last month, but have decided that it won't be until McDonald is decided.

Erik.
 
If possible move to one of the Virginia counties just south of DC and enjoy your gun freedoms there.
 
Why are you moving to DC? If it's for military, I can recommend places close to post. If it is for real, I can recommend places that aren't so bad to commute from. I've done both, still do one.
 
dogrunner said:
Relative to McDonald, does anyone know the probable decision release date?
Click to expand...

First... IANAL, so there.:neener:

Nobody knows except for the Judges (and maybe their spouses, providing if they sleep-talk), but most everyone thinks that McDonald will be released on the 28th or 29th of this month, or the last day of the session.

Justices can (and likely have in the past) NOT released certain opinions prior to the end of session.

Erik.
 
They're still sparring:
Unsatisfied with the course of oral argument held the previous week and with the contents
of its earlier pleadings, Defendants (“the District”) submitted a new, unauthorized brief on the merits of this case on January 29. Styled as a response to Plaintiffs’ pre-argument citation of relevant, newly-decided authority, the unauthorized brief is actually a continuation of the oral arguments held January 22, as well as a wholesale substitute motions brief.
Click to expand...
(February)

Judge Urbina filed an order March 26th which lets DC 'win' for the moment. Follow the link to the DOCKET, and click on the links to the documents.

I'd expect a filing for certiorari to SCOTUS, but Gura is probably focused on McDonald just now.
 
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Palmer seeks a license to carry a pistol, can show good character, and is employed as an armed security guard in DC anyway. IIRC he is also a gay man and can show he is at risk of hate crimes as a result.

He is the best possible candidate, as all the judges have to do is rule that a) it is a right to bear arms as well and b) he must be issued a license. They don't have to worry about open vs concealed, training or no training, Vermont style vs licensing, whether he is a felon, whether he is not of good character, whether he needs to show a 'genuine need'. It's all there.

So it will come down to the individual prejudices of the judges on the bench. As long as it goes through before one of the five judges who voted for Heller dies or retires I think Palmer will win.

Currently it is under appeal to the circuit court, I expect they will rule in Palmer's favor. Fenty will then have a Pavlovian reflex and appeal to SCOTUS.
 
As an ignorant Kiwi, what i don't understand is this - if the right to own (and bear?) arms is a right, how does it become a requirement to (a) licence (b) obtain permission [a permit to carry, whether ccw or ocw] (c) pay fees to excercise that "right"? What right do your states have to effectively charge you to excercise your rights? Okay taxes help the world revolve, but from what I have seen, those states have no requirement to protect their citizens, even if a protection order is granted to an applicant, i.e. an abused or threatened person (spouse, whatever). How is this logical? You PAY to obtain your "right"???
 
As an ignorant Kiwi, what i don't understand is this - if the right to own (and bear?) arms is a right, how does it become a requirement to (a) licence (b) obtain permission [a permit to carry, whether ccw or ocw] (c) pay fees to excercise that "right"? What right do your states have to effectively charge you to excercise your rights? Okay taxes help the world revolve, but from what I have seen, those states have no requirement to protect their citizens, even if a protection order is granted to an applicant, i.e. an abused or threatened person (spouse, whatever). How is this logical? You PAY to obtain your "right"???
Click to expand...

we dont either...
 
Now that the SCOTUS has found in favor of McDonald via the 14th Amendment, Incorporating the 2nd Amendment to all states, we'll see what Palmer vs. DC comes up with.
 
kiwiken:
For 130 years courts and governments and the mass media pretended the Second Amendment did not exist. Gun bans were passed in that time and became the law of the land. They also became ingrained into the culture as being normal.

The process of getting permits to carry etc passed was the equivalent of using the Fabian Socialists method of spreading socialism, small incremental steps.

25 years ago no states were 'shall issue' for CCW. Now the majority are. Two years ago Vermont was the only state that didn't require a permit for CCW. Now Alaska and New Mexico do as well.

When the majority of States recognized an abridged right to carry it became more likely to have a case decided by SCOTUS in favor of gun owners. The left wing of the court is opposed to gun ownership, the right wing is socially conservative and does not like to change societies norms. If you read Justice Scalia's opinion and questions in oral arguments he basically states that the method they use to incorporate rights is wrong, but as it is the norm he won't change it. If You read Alito's decision for the majority it basically says the same thing.
So now that the cases are making their way through the court system they are again being done incrementally. Heller was only about keeping a handgun in the home, he requested that he be allowed to register his firearm. Because of this SCOTUS did not address whether registration was constitutional. The same applies to McDonald Vs Chicago, just at the state and local level instead of Federal.
Palmer again is requesting a specific issue - registration/licensing of a gun for the purposes of carrying it. So SCOTUS can rule yes he can carry it, give him a license.

At some future point cases will be brought pointing out that licensing is an infringement and potentially a tax on a constitutional right, probably when Mayors Fenty or Bloomberg try to tax the right out of existence with license fees. Hopefully that will end up with a ruling further reducing the current restrictions.

TL,DR: 130 years of gun control will not be repealed overnight. Expect this to take a couple of decades to work out. It took just as long to end segregation.
 
.
Radagast:

Palmer again is requesting a specific issue - registration/licensing of a gun for the purposes of carrying it. So SCOTUS can rule yes he can carry it, give him a license.

At some future point cases will be brought pointing out that licensing is an infringement and potentially a tax on a constitutional right, probably when Mayors Fenty or Bloomberg try to tax the right out of existence with license fees.
Click to expand...



So, if SCOTUS decides in Palmer that he can carry a gun as long as he is licensed, then didn't we screw ourselves out of not having to be licensed?



I don't think you should have to have a license or registration of a Right.
 
usmarine0352_2005:
Nope. First, 'we' haven't done anything, If Gura & Palmer succeeds then they will have established that carry (bearing of arms) is a right, even if it is subject to some regulation (licensing). At the moment it is a privilege in some states and all Federal enclaves.
In both the Heller & McDonald decisions Both Scalia & Alito made clear that regulations such as bans on concealed carry, felons in possession, the mentally ill in possession and in sensitive areas such as schools were not overturned and it can be assumed that if a case reaches SCOTUS on appeal they will uphold those restrictions. The second amendment may say 'shall not be infringed', but the judges will allow it to be infringed whenever it goes past their comfort zone. Four judges already want to allow it to be infringed out of existence.

By requesting a license to carry Palmer is trying to stay within the judges comfort zone "see, I am an upstanding citizen, I already carry a gun at work to protect Washington's ruling class and I am willing to be reasonably regulated".

Gura is being smart. Get the right established first, then push at the level of infringment. I don't think an appeal to be able to carry a firearm without a license would make it through SCOTUS at this point - they don't have to give a reason for refusing to accept a case.
Palmer has already been denied at the district court level, the case is on appeal to the circuit court, which I am hopeful will rule in his favor. Mayor Fenty will then appeal to SCOTUS, which makes the case more likely to be accepted by them.
The point is that once Palmer is the law of the land then refusal to issue a license should become a criminal offense as a violation of civil rights under color of law. (IANAL, so take that with a grain of salt.) Pushing back against licensing will become a lot easier after a year or two of the whole country being shall issue for at least open carry with no major incidents.
 
Um, aren't you folks confusing Heller (II) with Palmer?

Heller is being appealed to the D.C. Circuit. Palmer is awaiting an answer to its MSJ from the District judge.
 
How would this effect recognition of licenses from other states? I mean, do you surrender your civil rights when you cross state lines? It seems like an unreasonable burden to expect someone to be licensed in every state in the off chance they have to cross a state line. I would hope that this would somehow force reciprocity, since, unlike driver's licenses, we are talking about a right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Alan Gura (DC v Heller Lawyer) to Speak at Michigan State University, December 5
Replies
1
Views
381
Henry Bowman
H
M
  • Locked
Are bump-fire stocks protected under DC v. Heller and its progeny? If so, why?
Replies
20
Views
1K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
A
  • Locked
DC Carry ruling... finally
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Replies
176
Views
12K
wojownik
wojownik
H
  • Locked
Hope for DC?
Replies
12
Views
509
Helmetcase
H
Gary Slider
  • Locked
Corps of Eng. . . DC May Issue. . . Long Guns. . . Answers
Replies
4
Views
927
4thPointOfContact
4
Back
Top