We just won Palmer at the DC District Court!

o6lkia.jpg


Emily Miller's take:
"Washington, D.C. is the only place in the country where no one is allowed to
legally carry a gun outside the home. District residents are trying to challenge
the law in court, but the justice system has denied them due process. [since 2009]
The almost five-year delay in Palmer v. District of Columbia is so extreme that some
suspect political games...."
Click to expand...
[duh....] :rolleyes:
Whether you are for or against gun control laws, the issue here is one of
access to the courts when your rights have been infringed. As long as Judge
Scullin refuses to rule, Americans who live in or visit the District are being denied
their fundamental right to self-defense, as well as their right to due process.
Click to expand...

BTW: You can bet your biippy this will go all the way to SCOTUS
 
Last edited:
DC will likely appeal it ONE step up (to the DC Circuit) but if they lose there, I'm not sure they'll take it to the Supremes. Chicago didn't after their loss in the 7th Circuit.
 
Here are the important bits:

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. [p. 16]
Click to expand...

the Court further ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this memorandum-Decision and Order, are permanently enjoined from enforcing D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) to ban registration of handguns to be carried in public for self-defense by law-abiding citizens [p. 18]
Click to expand...
 
So when can we carry? What's off limits? The federal places such as capital, linconal memorial? WWII, so forth
 
Not for at least another year, the District is going to appeal just for bloody-mindedness.

Even then, expect another year for them to work out the 'regulations' for compliance, just like Chicago is doing.
 
As I read it, the decision enjoins DC from enforcing it's ban against firearms outside the home IMMEDIATELY, and the judge did not stay his order. That means, unless my reading comprehension is completely off, anyone in DC with the legal right to possess a firearm may carry it in public.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-dc-ban-on-gun-carry-rights-unconstitutional/

From the article:
The court ordered the city to now allow residents from the District and other states to carry weapon within its boundaries.

Judge Scullin wrote that the court “enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of [D.C. firearms laws] 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.”
Click to expand...

Seems pretty clear cut to me. Until DC writes and enacts a carry law that is compliant under Heller and McDonald, the carry of firearms is now legal in DC.
 
Given the current strategy of the Anti's, I don't think it really matters any more. They'll just pass a slightly less restrictive law and start the whole process over. Our system only works for those with honest intentions who "accidentally" go too far. It doesn't account for those who use the system against itself, knowing that every step takes years to resolution and a simple change of a few sentences resets the clock.

Until the courts slap it down, hard, they'll just keep doing it. I don't even know if the courts have the necessary authority. There is no penalty that I'm aware of for intentionally passing unconstitutional laws.
 
I guess we'll see how quickly the DC govt. can get itself together and pass a new law. In the meantime, unless DC can get the DC court of appeals to issue an injunction or TRO, carry is now legal in DC.
 
What I like most about this decision is that the jurist actually seems to have read the precedents and is applying them, as opposed to so many who pay lip service to Heller and then go straight away to ignoring its application and intent.
 
I also noticed and welcomed the specific enjoinder against discriminating against non-residents of DC.

Let's face it, when United States citizens can't exercise the rights guaranteed to them under the United State Constitution in the capital of the United States -- that's pretty messed up.
 
Not for at least another year, the District is going to appeal just for bloody-mindedness.
Click to expand...
In that case, it goes to the DC Circuit, who supported Heller back when it was Parker. (Hipster Circuit Court loved the 2A before it was cool.)

That means, unless my reading comprehension is completely off, anyone in DC with the legal right to possess a firearm may carry it in public.
Click to expand...
In theory, yes. In practice, I wouldn't advise it.

The city will probably push for a stay on Monday.

They'll just pass a slightly less restrictive law and start the whole process over.
Click to expand...
That's what they did in the wake of the Heller decision. They quickly passed the Firearms Registration Emergency Amendment Act to create as many hurdles as legally feasible for would-be gun owners. I don't expect anything other than an arbitrary and rigorous may-issue system.

If they don't get a stay, the pressure will certainly be on.

However, here's a thought. It's pure speculation on my part, but bear with me.

Gura brought this suit after the Emergency Whatchamajigger passed. The District Court did its best to ignore it. It was Chief Justice Roberts who intervened and ordered Scullin to hear it.

Maybe this is the carry case SCOTUS has been waiting to hear.
 
On carrying in the District NOW, Tom noted:
In theory, yes. In practice, I wouldn't advise it.
Click to expand...
I agree the language is pretty blunt: So if (an otherwise non prohibited) someone DID decide to test this today, what could DC do to them if caught with a handgun in the District?
 
DC would probably arrest them like they normally do, look for any other violations (high cap mags, hollow points,exc.), drag the person through the mud and eventually drop the charges. You've also got a good portion of the city located within school zones, which is another potential minefield at this time.
As far as Congress stepping in, I don't know. If Congress alone controls (no POTUS signing necessary), perhaps something could get passed. However I think based on the National Reciprocity vote that a good shall-issue law would need another 2-3 votes. The House would be a slam dunk. It might be better though if they don't step in just so the case moves up the ladder, as it is the most clear cut for SCOTUS to take.
 
Tom Servo said:
Gura brought this suit after the Emergency Whatchamajigger passed. The District Court did its best to ignore it. It was Chief Justice Roberts who intervened and ordered Scullin to hear it.

Maybe this is the carry case SCOTUS has been waiting to hear.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I no longer believe that it matters who hears it.

They'll set up a permitting/purchase/registration process that goes;

1)
a
b
c
...
z

2)
a
b
c
...
z

3)
a
b
c
....

all the way to;

29)
a
b
c
...

And when it gets struck down they'll just remove a sub-step "a" here or an "h" there, maybe a whole step somewhere, and start over.

They know that it'll be YEARS before it can be undone and it, again, won't matter when it is, they'll just drop ANOTHER "a" or "c" or whole step, knowing they've got dozens and every one takes years so it really doesn't make any difference at all.

The courts are either unwilling or unable to stop it, so it will never stop.
 
Tom Servo said:
Maybe this is the carry case SCOTUS has been waiting to hear.
Click to expand...

There is a great deal of merit to this view. Other cases involve the intricacies of licensing and carry laws, but Palmer is nearly (except for obtaining a nonexistent license) an absolute carry prohibition. Whatever case the Supreme Court might eventually take, the simpler the question, the better.

We have seen how the lower courts cling to the specifics of Heller to claim that the Second Amendment exists on some sliding scale that diminishes the further an issue is from "hearth and home." A straightforward carry case could correct that notion and be less susceptible to being misconstrued than the minutiae that would necessarily be involved in some of the more complex licensing cases we have seen.
 
Congratulations are in order for all those involved in this fight. Well done!

Scullin said:
As stated above, with respect to Plaintiff Raymond's Second Amendment claim, the District of Columbia may not completely bar him, or any other qualified individual, from carrying a handgun in public for self-defense simply because they are not residents of the District.
Click to expand...

I think this could be applied to say that no state (or even no city) can have a total ban on non-resident carry (California et al).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top