Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 69

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

  1. #1
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

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

    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...r-unknown.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by ccwinstructor View Post
    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...r-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?
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  3. #3
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    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.

  4. #4
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    Here's the ruling.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645
    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.

  6. #6
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    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.

  7. #7
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,169
    so did they put a limit on the method of carry? ie: concealed or open carry?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,201
    Quote Originally Posted by hammer6 View Post
    so did they put a limit on the method of carry? ie: concealed or open carry?
    Doesn't appear so
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  9. #9
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    The Senate and President get to play too!

    Quote Originally Posted by Right Wing Wacko View Post
    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!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    97
    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?

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    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 by cloudcroft; 07-28-2014 at 02:28 AM.

  12. #12
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    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.

  13. #13
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,896
    Quote Originally Posted by cloudcroft View Post
    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.

  14. #14
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    Prior to this-DC DID NOT issue permits. That's not a scheme.
    Last edited by swinokur; 07-27-2014 at 06:40 AM.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    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.
    I'm tempted to go today.

    But I probably won't. I still don't actually like the city.

  16. #16
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    Maybe Adam Kokesh is available.


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,201
    Quote Originally Posted by swinokur View Post
    Maybe Adam Kokesh is available.

    Most likely well move to have charges and or convictions vacated.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    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.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    One may beat the rap but you will not beat the ride. The discretionary raps are easy, disorderly, obstruction and resisting come to mind.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by IanB View Post
    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.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by cloudcroft View Post
    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 by Thundar; 07-27-2014 at 10:14 AM.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  22. #22
    Regular Member Baked on Grease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Va.
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    Most likely well move to have charges and or convictions vacated.
    I thought of that but supposedly used a shotgun and the ruling repeatedly says handgun.
    "A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

    "According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

    Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    marshaul,

    ...I wouldn't go dressed like you are in your avatar: At the very least, you may be asked for a badge. ;-)



    Thundar,

    Then why is HI still unchanged and still not issuing permits? Yes, perhaps it is waiting to see how things go FURTHER in District Court 9, but the Peruta ruling was quite a while ago, wasn't it? And yet HI still makes no changes?

    As I said, "may-issue" is just stone-walling, as may-issue doesn't REQUIRE states to issue any permits.

    And recall that case in MD a while back (Wollard vs. Sheridan), where the ruling said something about people NOT having to show a "good & substantial reason" to apply for a CC permit -- which seems to shoot-down "may-issue" policies in EVERY state -- as people have the right for self-protection (i.e, their LIFE is their "good & substantial reason")...and yet, we still have states with may-issue policies in those districts?

    Or was that vacated on appeal by the sate so they are back to where they were before: STILL requiring a "substantial" reason from an applicant to get approved for a permit?

    Yes, I know HI is not in the same District as MD, but regardless, isn't such a ruling noted by anyone (Governor Abercrombie, HPD Chief Kealoha, the HI State Legislature) in HI? Yet it still stone-walls.

    And the SCOTUS continues to do nothing about states that STILL won't allow it's citizens to carry SOMEHOW?
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 07-28-2014 at 02:34 AM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    I'll not go out on a limb and state I think I know how this ends. A discretionary permit system a la Maryland or New Jersey, a ton of prohibited places and limitations on what kind of firearms can be carried. Of course, it will be concealed carry only. It will be more trouble than it's worth. Just as handgun ownership is still very difficult post Heller, so will carry be after this case. At least it's another admission that there is a right to carry. They may still treat it as a second class right, but at least it's not a right that can be utterly denied. Perhaps some good will come of it for future generations or other jurisdictions. I'm always looking for legal decisions that could help our plight in Florida as we have no right to carry guns.
    Last edited by 77zach; 07-27-2014 at 04:11 PM.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    I'll not go out on a limb and state I think I know how this ends. A discretionary permit system a la Maryland or New Jersey, a ton of prohibited places and limitations on what kind of firearms can be carried. Of course, it will be concealed carry only. It will be more trouble than it's worth. Just as handgun ownership is still very difficult post Heller, so will carry be after this case. At least it's another admission that there is a right to carry. They may still treat it as a second class right, but at least it's not a right that can be utterly denied. Perhaps some good will come of it for future generations or other jurisdictions. I'm always looking for legal decisions that could help our plight in Florida as we have no right to carry guns.
    77zach,

    Don't worry, be happy! This ruling is actually much better for gun owners that we could have hoped for.

    For DC the end is not clear. DC could try to implement a permitting system or DC could appeal the ruling.

    If DC decides to implement, any stupid rules by DC will go back in front of Scullin. Good news for DC gun owners. DC would ask for a stay while theymake the new laws. 6 month stay, then however long it takes to implement.

    If DC decides to appeal, then there is potential good news for all US gun owners. Losing in the Circuit would create a very clear split between the DC Circuit and the 9th Circuit. As long as the beating hearts of the 5 somewhat rational justices remain beating, there can be no outcome except a declaration that the 2A exists outside the home.

    The smart thing for DC would be to implement. DC is not, however smart. I believe they will choose appeal and Gura will again spank them, either in the circuit court, or eventually in the Supreme Court.

    Thundar
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •