• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Ruling on Palmer in D.C.: Carry Outside of Home is Constitutional Right

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
915
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
Alan Gura reports that the District Court, after nearly five years of stonewalling, has found for the Constitutional right to bear arms outside of the home. It has struck down the prohibitions on carry outside of the home in the District of Columbia, for both residents and non-residents. It took five years and two petitions for a writ of mandamus to obtain this decision. The wording below is from the decision. From alangura.com:

"In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny. Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) 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.4 Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District."


No doubt the D.C. government will work quickly to place some restrictions on carry outside of the home. But today is Saturday, the 26th of July. I refuse to beleive that they will be able to enact an ordinace before Monday. For some period of time, it will be legal to carry a firearm outside of your home in D.C. without a permit to carry.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/07/dc-has-constitutional-carry-for-unknown.html
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
Alan Gura reports that the District Court, after nearly five years of stonewalling, has found for the Constitutional right to bear arms outside of the home. It has struck down the prohibitions on carry outside of the home in the District of Columbia, for both residents and non-residents. It took five years and two petitions for a writ of mandamus to obtain this decision. The wording below is from the decision. From alangura.com:

"In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny. Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) 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.4 Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District."


No doubt the D.C. government will work quickly to place some restrictions on carry outside of the home. But today is Saturday, the 26th of July. I refuse to beleive that they will be able to enact an ordinace before Monday. For some period of time, it will be legal to carry a firearm outside of your home in D.C. without a permit to carry.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/07/dc-has-constitutional-carry-for-unknown.html
I was wondering if this was true myself thanks to the legalese they insist on using. THIS is the time for mass (peaceful) demonstrations demanding the Constitution be obeyed. In fact I'd suggest no legislation is made at all. If I understand this correctly D.C is at least for now Constitutional Carry?
 

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
915
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
I think it is Constitutional Carry, at least for a time.

No doubt the DC government will ask the appeals court for a stay, but I am not at all sure that it will be granted.

The House voting to defund the enforcement of gun laws in D.C. reinforces this, as does the recent arrests of a Congressional Staffer, and a prominent citizens, a veterinarian, from South Carolina.

All this, and especially Peruta in Californa, led to this decision.
 

Right Wing Wacko

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
645
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
I believe this puts the City Council in a Catch 22.

They can appeal, however if they do so absent a Stay, the city remains constitutional carry while the appeal works it's way thru the courts.

They can quickly enact a carry law that satisfy's the courts requirements, however that makes any appeal moot.

At this point, I'm not sure which one would be best.
 

swinokur

Activist Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
919
Location
Montgomery County, MD
And remember the DC Circuit is bound by their ruling in Heller, which DC IMO stupidly appealed. Maybe they've learned a lesson. Maybe not.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,422
Location
Florida
so did they put a limit on the method of carry? ie: concealed or open carry?
 

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
915
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
The Senate and President get to play too!

I believe this puts the City Council in a Catch 22.

They can appeal, however if they do so absent a Stay, the city remains constitutional carry while the appeal works it's way thru the courts.

They can quickly enact a carry law that satisfy's the courts requirements, however that makes any appeal moot.

At this point, I'm not sure which one would be best.
The House passed the bill to defund enforcement of the DC gun laws. If the Senate and the President sign off, it will be out of the DC government's hands, and they can say: See, the evil Republicans made us do it. It is not our fault!!

Won't they be in a shock when crime rates fall!
 

Arma1911

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2012
Messages
96
Location
VA
This is a terrific ruling! I am presently at a loss for words as I expected this to continue to be dragged through the courts indefinitely.

I, like others, vote with my wallet and choose not to go to DC because, in part, of their laws on self defense. DC is a beautiful city and I will gladly make the drive with the family to enjoy all nice things the city has to offer if this is for ruling is for real.

It is now legal to open/conceal carry in the District without any permit. Is this correct? And how quickly are LEOs informed of this? I don't want to be the first one to tell a LEO that it is now legal as he is pointing his firearm at my head.

Any lawyers out there that want to chime in?
 

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,863
Location
El Paso, TX
It may not be any victory at all.

Except "on paper." ;-)

I didn't read the ruling (and have trouble comprehending legalese anyway -- sorry), but it seems the court just told DC they have to allow carry outside the home but didn't tell DC how to go about doing that. DC can still resist/stone-wall by going may-issue, and require a 'good & compelling reason' from an applicant or otherwise, not grant a permit.

I mean what's stopping DC to do like HI does and has for many years now: ON PAPER it issues CC permits (OC is not allowed) so ON PAPER it "allows" its citizens to a way to carry handguns "outside the home" -- the second half of the 2nd Amendment, meaning "to bear arms" (not just "keep arms") -- but IN REALITY, however, residents of HI can't carry ANYTHING past their front door, as it's only on paper that HI claims to issue CC permits -- yet it never DOES!

HI is a MAY-ISSUE state and requires a 'good & compelling reason' to have a CC permit approved (like MOST ALL sorry foreign countries of the world, but HI is supposed to be a STATE, like the rest of us). For some reason -- which is SO TRUE of states with may-issue CC permit policies -- Honolulu Police Chief Louis "no-issue" Kealoha hasn't HEARD any 'good and compelling reason' yet to grant permits so he arbitrarily refuses to issue them (but of course, HE gets to carry) to the average Joe on Oahu (Oahu County), that is, meaning just about EVERYONE on Oahu have no good reason to carry (and yes, HI has plenty of crime). Nor do the other HI islands (different counties) allow carry, either.

So what's to stop DC from doing the VERY SAME UNconstitutional thing HI does (and the SCOTUS does nothing about it)? Meaning that DC decides the "best way" to obey the court is to go may-issue instead of shall-issue...and just NEVER ISSUE any permits? The ruling doesn't force DC to go shall-issue, does it? As for OC, the court didn't order "Constitutional carry," either, did it? Or even unpermitted OC? So to satisfy the court, DC can ON PAPER offer an "opportunity" to CC -- appear to satisfy the ruling ON PAPER -- yet never let anyone actually realize that opportunity, so no ones ever GETS a DC CC permit.

So it seems the court is telling DC it has to allow carry outside the home, but will leave it up to DC to decide how. The best way for sorry, repressive, liberal, anti-gun DC (or states like HI) to continue to stone-wall the 2nd Amendment/RKBA -- AND rulings like this one from the court -- would be to go may-issue, and just never issue. Like sorry HI. After all, it's worked for HI for MANY years...and no one (courts) have forced HI to go shall-issue. Or allow OC.

If the judge(s) did not consider/forsee that a state would just "obey" their ruling on paper (by going may-issue, mere "lip-service"), which it never intended to honor IN REALITY -- then it's still going to be some time in the future & more trips to the bench to force DC (and these damn may-issue states) -- to obey the spirit of the law as well as the letter of it.

If this court had said DC MUST go SHALL-ISSUE, then that would have been much better. As for unpermitted OC, that'd be GREAT (Constitutional Carry the best), but who can see DC going from ZERO CARRY at all to unpermitted OC or Constitutional Carry overnight? So maybe the best we can hope for in DC (and for the people of HI who also haven't been able to carry) -- is for a shall-issue CC permit policy to come out of it.

If I've made any sense here trying to 'splain myself...

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see where DC now has NOTHING to say -- or gives up any right/power to control the MEANS of carrying -- and DC residents can just start CC-ing or even OC-ing NOW (or even SOON).

Consequently, I wouldn't be surprised if DC will continue to fight by dragging its feet as long as possible...and then, go may-issue...and then just not issue. Exactly like their "how to stone-wall the 2nd Amendment/RKBA without really trying" role-model -- The Sorry State of Hawaii (if they could just get shall-issue there, that would be outstanding, if not perhaps a true miracle).


P.S. If by "a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards" (re: carry policies) the court means may-issue is this "standard," then nothing much will change. Only SHALL-ISSUE should be legally acceptable if a state issues CC permits.

IMO, a state MUST allow it's residents at least ONE form of carry (CC or OC) outside the home: The WHOLE 2nd Amendment must be honored in its entirety, BOTH parts of it, the "to keep" and "to bear." Not just HALF of it ("to keep" -- at HOME). While I'd like NO permits of any kind required for CC and OC, at least in most states we CAN carry somehow...but not in some states, or in this case DC so far. So permits may be a necessary evil presently...as we evolve.

Hopefully LATER that will change: Constitutional Carry in EVERY state of this so-called Union.
 
Last edited:

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,748
Location
Oregon
I expect to see youtube videos of somebody carrying a handgun in DC. Who is going to be the first? It's a bit of a drive for me so I'm looking at all those liberty-loving Virginians.
 

IanB

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
1,896
Location
Northern VA
So what's to stop DC from doing the VERY SAME UNconstitutional thing HI does (and the SCOTUS does nothing about it)? Meaning that DC decides the "best way" to obey the court is to go may-issue instead of shall-issue...and just NEVER ISSUE any permits?
You need to read the case and judgement. That was addressed, DC already has a permit scheme, but it's impossible to get one. That's what this WHOLE case was about.
 

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
758
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
Hopefully, some freedom-loving Virginians will get together and open carry in D.C. as part of a pre-planned group picnic and/or stroll (safety in numbers). I'd love to see that, really love to see that!

There needs to be some 'proof' that average persons can be armed in public in the District without the sky falling BEFORE the city council muddies up the current de facto constitutional carry status of our nation's capital.
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
You need to read the case and judgement. That was addressed, DC already has a permit scheme, but it's impossible to get one. That's what this WHOLE case was about.
Well sort of. DC had a "scheme" before Heller and the statute may still be on the books. Granted, DC didn't issue permits for years, they admitted such in several cases before Heller. Basically they would claim no one would have "good cause" for it. After Heller, the police chief was stripped of authority to grant the permit. So while it was "technically" possible to get one before Heller, it's now legally impossible.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,939
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
It may not be any victory at all. Except "on paper." ;-)

I didn't read the ruling (and have trouble comprehending legalese anyway -- sorry), but it seems the court just told DC they have to allow carry outside the home but didn't tell DC how to go about doing that. DC can still resist/stonewall by going may-issue, and requiring a 'good & compelling reason' from an applicant or otherwise, not grant a permit.

I mean what's stopping DC to do like HI does and has for many years now: ON PAPER it issues CC permits (OC is not allowed) so ON PAPER it "allows" its citizens to a way to carry handguns "outside the home" -- the second half of the 2nd Amendment, meaning "to bear arms" (not just "keep arms") -- but IN REALITY, however, residents of HI can't carry ANYTHING past their front door, as it's only on paper that HI issues CC permits -- but it never DOES issue permits!


So what's to stop DC from doing the VERY SAME UNconstitutional thing HI does (and the SCOTUS does nothing about it)? Meaning that DC decides the "best way" to obey the court is to go may-issue instead of shall-issue...and just NEVER ISSUE any permits? The ruling doesn't force DC to go shall-issue, does it? As for OC, the court didn't order "Constitutional carry," either, did it? Or even unpermitted OC? So to satisfy the court, DC can ON PAPER offer an "opportunity" to CC -- appear to satisfy the ruling ON PAPER -- yet never let anyone actually realize that opportunity, so no ones ever GETS a DC CC permit.

So it seems the court is telling DC it has to allow carry outside the home, but will leave it up to DC to decide how. The best way for sorry, repressive, liberal, anti-gun DC (or states like HI) to continue to stonewall the 2nd Amendment/RKBA -- AND rulings like this one from the court -- would be to go may-issue, and just never issue. Like sorry HI. After all, it's worked for HI for MANY years...and no one (courts) have forced HI to go shall-issue. Or allow OC.

If the judge(s) did not consider/forsee that a state would just "obey" on paper (by going may-issue, mere "lip-service"), which it never intended to honor IN REALITY -- then it's still going to be some time in the future & more trips to the bench to force DC (and these damn states) -- to obey the spirit of the law as well as the letter of it.




P.S. If by "a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards" (re: carry policies) the court means may-issue is this "standard," then nothing much will change. Only SHALL-ISSUE should be legally acceptable if a state issues CC permits.

.
I think The ruling is fairly clear on this point. The judge quotes extensively from Peruta, which is the 9th circuit case which says that CA. must allow carry outside the home for citizens who are not otherwise barred (felon, mentally ill, etc.)

Peruta is applicable to Hawaii as Hawaii is a 9th circuit state.
 
Last edited:
Top