We just won Palmer at the DC District Court!

In the meantime, I am sure the DC police will ignore the ruling just as they do with other ruling they dont like, such as when someone is legaling videoing them...arrest, confiscation, harrass, etc.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
Still sleepy, Al? The link in the opening post takes us to the 19-page decision.
Click to expand...

As good as Gura may be, or as much as we all trust the man, don't you think that an unbiased source (as in direct from the court, itself) is better?

(that's my story and I'm stickin' to it :p )
 
Al, do you remember the Silveria case? Pre-Heller, 9th Circuit, three-judge panel decision that went badly against us penned by "Justice" Reinhardt?

You can go find the "official" copy, or you can look at mine:

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/Silveira.pdf

The difference is interesting, because this decision was penned literally days before life completely blew up for one Michael Bellesiles, the scumbag lying author of "Arming America" that Clayton Cramer eventually detonated. The original Silveira decision cited to Bellesiles. Weeks later an amended version was filed that stripped out references directly to Bellesiles, while still leaving behind references to a symposium whose contents were all "Bellesiles fan club" crap.

So - point is, the copy on Gura's site is actually MORE likely to remain authentic (long term) than the "authentic original" that bad judges can still screw with.
 
In the meantime, I am sure the DC police will ignore the ruling just as they do with other ruling they dont like, such as when someone is legaling videoing them
Click to expand...
That's why I wouldn't advise carrying there. I've heard of the DC police refusing to acknowledge legal carry under the LEOSA.
 
Jim, I already have both copies of Silveira.

My point was that since the Internet Archives has the issued copy of the case, it won't accept a revised copy, unless it is given a different docket number. In which case, both versions will reside in the archives.

I stand by my previous post.
 
There is no penalty that I'm aware of for intentionally passing unconstitutional laws.
Click to expand...
For most municipalities, one "penalty" would be the payment of attorney fees. Even if covered by insurance, it would affect rates. However, D.C.'s unique financial structure makes that financial pressure weaker.
 
More from the Washington Post here.

In an order approved by Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier, police were told that District residents are permitted to carry pistols if the weapons are registered. Those who had not registered their handguns could be charged on that ground, the instruction said.
Click to expand...

This is where it gets tricky. I'm not a DC resident, so if I carry there, can I get busted for carrying an unregistered gun? Looks like it.

Meanwhile, the DC attorney general's office will be pursuing a stay, and it looks like the mayor set to replace Gray will be encouraging an appeal.
 
NO, Tom, you've got it very wrong.

Why?

Because the court already accepted as fact that non-DC people can't register jack, and then the court told DC they could not discriminate against non-DC people.

This court read the US Supreme court correctly for a change in Saenz v. Roe (1999) and Ward v. Maryland (1870).

Forcing non-DC people to show a card WE CANNOT GET would violate the order.
 
My guess is that this will be the world's fastest stay and appeal.
Click to expand...

Stay, yes; appeal, no. If DC can get a stay, they will be more than happy to drag it out for another five years or so. After all, if it isn't stayed, there will be blood running in the street, dogs and cats living together, utter chaos! :eek::rolleyes:
 
NO, Tom, you've got it very wrong.
Click to expand...

Jim, Tom was quoting/paraphrasing/summarizing someone else, meaning most likely Tom has it right, but the person he was quoting has it wrong. Meaning while you may be right that Y group of people can do X, Tom can still have it right that the police will arrest Y's until it shakes out and any Y's who don't want to go through the hassle should listen to what Tom said.
 
So at this point...right now until some court mumbo-jumbo says we have to hold off until after the next round in court...we can carry in DC?

Yes we can...until they stay the order. My guess is that this will be the world's fastest stay and appeal.
Click to expand...
No. In order to possess a handgun in DC, you must register it for a particular use. From the Palmer decision:
D.C. Code § 7-2502.01(a) provides that "no persons or organization in the District shall possess or control any firearm, unless the persons or organization holds a valid registration certificate for the firearm." D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) provides that individuals who are not retired police officers may only register a handgun "for use in self-defense within that person's home." Pursuant to this statutory limitation, Defendants distribute handgun registration application forms requiring applicants to "give a brief statement of your intended use of the firearm and where the firearm will be kept."

* * *

D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) provides that "[n]o person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so concealed." The first violation of this section by a non-felon is punishable by a fine up to $5,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

Former D.C. Code § 22-4506 empowered the District of Columbia's police chief to issue licenses to carry handguns to individuals, including to individuals not residing in the District of Columbia. However, it was Defendant District of Columbia's policy for many years not to issue such licenses. On December 16, 2008, the District of Columbia's City Council and Mayor repealed the Police Chief's authority to issue handgun carry licenses. Accordingly, the District of Columbia lacks any mechanism to issue handgun carry licenses to individuals.
Click to expand...
The court simply told DC it had to accept applications for licenses to carry outside the home. It overturned the ban on "registration of handguns to be carried in public for self-defense by law abiding citizens." This does not mean there is "Constitutional carry" in DC now. It simply means that DC has to start accepting applications for registration for the purpose of carry, rather than just for "self-defense within the home."
 
The court simply told DC it had to accept applications for licenses to carry outside the home. It overturned the ban on "registration of handguns to be carried in public for self-defense by law abiding citizens." This does not mean there is "Constitutional carry" in DC now. It simply means that DC has to start accepting applications for registration for the purpose of carry, rather than just for "self-defense within the home."
Click to expand...

That's not my reading of the decision.
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; and
5 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.

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 § 22-4504(a); and the
Court further ORDERS that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation from them who receive actual notice of this Memorandum-Decision and Order from enforcing D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) against individuals based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District of Columbia.
Click to expand...

Simply put, DC may NOT enforce any law against carrying a concealed weapon against a resident who has properly registered the weapon, or against a non-resident who has a valid concealed carry permit from his or her home state.

Those two laws are toast. The District MAY enact a concealed carry statute that has a mechanism for persons to apply for and receive permits, but for now they cannot prohibit residents with registered weapons or non-resident permit holders from carrying in DC. :cool:
 
My reading of the tea leaves doesn't lead me to think Judge Scullin is inclined to stay his decision, so any stay will likely have to come from the DC Court of Appeals. I would think if DC CoA was going to issue an emergency stay, they'd have done so by now.

And no, Judge Scullin's ruling makes it quite clear that for non-DC residents, there is now no general prohibition on handgun carry in DC and they may carry wherever federal law permits (ie not in school zones).
 
On the face of it, there appears to be no requirement for ANYTHING for non-residents of DC... the POST article mentions non-felons, but the Judge's order does not specify what constitutes a "qualified individual", and as we know there are as many "flavors" of "qualified individuals" outside DC as there are states, including the no-permit states. There also has been no mention of OC vs concealed, so...

Could there conceivably be OC by any non-felon non-DC-resident ?

This is the most fun news I've heard in a long while!
 
Gary L. Griffiths said:
but for now they cannot prohibit residents with registered weapons or non-resident permit holders from carrying in DC.
Click to expand...

They may well lose in court but they most certainly can and can be expected to prohibit anyone carrying and arrest anyone they find in possession of an unpermitted firearm in public.

We need to stop expecting these people to capitulate, play by the rules or admit defeat. I don't even think they care about losing in court. It doesn't really change anything, it's just part of their tactic to either win, which they'd love, or delay right to carry essentially indefinitely. They really CAN'T "lose". They can only have one law struck down. Since they have an infinite variety of new laws available for the writing, they just write a new one.

We Gun Rights folks are the modern day Sisyphus.

KyJim said:
For most municipalities, one "penalty" would be the payment of attorney fees. Even if covered by insurance, it would affect rates. However, D.C.'s unique financial structure makes that financial pressure weaker.
Click to expand...

Again, I think this is an underestimation of their strategy and intentions. I dare someone to say "The government cares how much money they spend.", with a straight face.

Financial penalties are no penalty to these people. It's not their money and the people who own the money have shown no propensity to care. These politicians would roll it up and use it for firewood if they had to.
 
Last edited:
They may well lose in court but they most certainly can and can be expected to prohibit anyone carrying and arrest anyone they find in possession of an unpermitted firearm in public.
Click to expand...

Brian, I hear you. I really do. But I think your well-founded cynicism may just be unwarranted in this case. Again, you may call me a cockeyed optimist, but Emily Miller reports the DC Police Chief is already putting out instructions not to arrest concealed carriers who are registered gun owner residents or non-felon non-residents.

http://concealednation.org/2014/07/breaking-emily-miller-dc-police-chief-tells-force-to-allow-full-reciprocity-for-concealed-and-open-carry/

I can actually see DC not appealing this decision, but I can also see them slapping a may-issue concealed carry statute onto the books just as fast as they can copy New Jersey's law. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Gary L. Griffiths said:
I can also see them slapping a may-issue concealed carry statute onto the books just as fast as they can copy New Jersey's law.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure they will but I've been living under NY's "May Issue" for my whole life and it's been here a lot longer than that.

"May issue" amounts to no issue if the judge/county/jurisdiction in question decides such, and DC will. In fact, that'll be their intent... and they'll lose... in about 3-5 years... and then they'll do it again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top