Fed judge rules DC's ban on carrying gun outside the home, is unconstitutional

[Little-Acorn]

And another domino falls in the long chain leading to full obedience of the 2nd amendment, and the freedom of law-abiding people to own and carry a gun.

--------------------------------------

EMILY MILLER: Federal judge rules DC ban on gun carry rights unconstitutional | Fox News

Federal judge rules DC ban on gun carry rights unconstitutional

By Emily Miller
Published July 26, 2014

A federal judge in the District of Columbia on Saturday overturned the city’s total ban on residents being allowing to carry firearms outside their home, declaring the law “unconstitutional” in a landmark decision for gun-rights activists.

Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. wrote in his ruling in Palmer v. District of Columbia that the right to bear arms extends outside the home, therefore gun-control laws in the nation’s capital are “unconstitutional.”

Click here to read the decision.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/07/26/palmer-v-district-columbia-decision/

 

[martybegan]

And another domino falls in the long chain leading to full obedience of the 2nd amendment, and the freedom of law-abiding people to own and carry a gun.

--------------------------------------

EMILY MILLER: Federal judge rules DC ban on gun carry rights unconstitutional | Fox News

Federal judge rules DC ban on gun carry rights unconstitutional

By Emily Miller
Published July 26, 2014

A federal judge in the District of Columbia on Saturday overturned the city’s total ban on residents being allowing to carry firearms outside their home, declaring the law “unconstitutional” in a landmark decision for gun-rights activists.

Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. wrote in his ruling in Palmer v. District of Columbia that the right to bear arms extends outside the home, therefore gun-control laws in the nation’s capital are “unconstitutional.”

Click here to read the decision.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/07/26/palmer-v-district-columbia-decision/

Next step, places like NYC that only allow concealed carry to people the cops approve of.

 

[Jughead]

The parties do not dispute the basic facts that underlie this action. 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."

I didn't realize that gun laws in D.C. were so restrictive. If you can't take the gun outside of the home, how are you supposed to take it to the shooting range?

I assume that a new gun owner would ideally like to learn how to use his firearm properly. Not being permitted to leave his home with his own gun does not give him that option.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The parties do not dispute the basic facts that underlie this action. 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."

I didn't realize that gun laws in D.C. were so restrictive. If you can't take the gun outside of the home, how are you supposed to take it to the shooting range?

Many states say you can do something like lock it in the trunk of your car, wit ammunition separate and in a different location, etc. etc. Perhaps DC has something like that.

Officials trying to restrict your 2nd amendment rights, often try to pretend they aren't restricting them "too much". With "too much" defined by whichever official happens to be in power just then.

 

[Jughead]

The parties do not dispute the basic facts that underlie this action. 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."

I didn't realize that gun laws in D.C. were so restrictive. If you can't take the gun outside of the home, how are you supposed to take it to the shooting range?

Many states say you can do something like lock it in the trunk of your car, wit ammunition separate and in a different location, etc. etc. Perhaps DC has something like that.

Officials trying to restrict your 2nd amendment rights, often try to pretend they aren't restricting them "too much". With "too much" defined by whichever official happens to be in power just then.

Even if D.C. did have a similar law, it would not work. Those (like myself) who drive pickup trucks would not be able to lock their guns in the truck as the truck has no trunk. The law also would make it hard for those who have no car and need to take the bus to get to the shooting range.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I didn't realize that gun laws in D.C. were so restrictive. If you can't take the gun outside of the home, how are you supposed to take it to the shooting range?

Many states say you can do something like lock it in the trunk of your car, wit ammunition separate and in a different location, etc. etc. Perhaps DC has something like that.

Officials trying to restrict your 2nd amendment rights, often try to pretend they aren't restricting them "too much". With "too much" defined by whichever official happens to be in power just then.

Even if D.C. did have a similar law, it would not work. Those (like myself) who drive pickup trucks would not be able to lock their guns in the truck as the truck has no trunk. The law also would make it hard for those who have no car and need to take the bus to get to the shooting range.

I'd imagine that making things easy for gun owners was not high on the DC City Council's list of priorities.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Intolerant]

I'll predict the dragging of feet like Chicago so they can avoid it as long as possible....

 

[Inevitable]

The parties do not dispute the basic facts that underlie this action. 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."

I didn't realize that gun laws in D.C. were so restrictive. If you can't take the gun outside of the home, how are you supposed to take it to the shooting range?

I assume that a new gun owner would ideally like to learn how to use his firearm properly. Not being permitted to leave his home with his own gun does not give him that option.

That is the point, they don't want you to haveit, they don't want you to learn how to shoot the only reason they couldn't just removeguns entirely it's because there is an amendment stripping them.

 

[Inevitable]

And another domino falls in the long chain leading to full obedience of the 2nd amendment, and the freedom of law-abiding people to own and carry a gun.

--------------------------------------

EMILY MILLER: Federal judge rules DC ban on gun carry rights unconstitutional | Fox News

Federal judge rules DC ban on gun carry rights unconstitutional

By Emily Miller
Published July 26, 2014

A federal judge in the District of Columbia on Saturday overturned the city’s total ban on residents being allowing to carry firearms outside their home, declaring the law “unconstitutional” in a landmark decision for gun-rights activists.

Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. wrote in his ruling in Palmer v. District of Columbia that the right to bear arms extends outside the home, therefore gun-control laws in the nation’s capital are “unconstitutional.”

Click here to read the decision.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/07/26/palmer-v-district-columbia-decision/

I am glad to see the supreme court ruling for the citizens.

 

[jon_berzerk]

And another domino falls in the long chain leading to full obedience of the 2nd amendment, and the freedom of law-abiding people to own and carry a gun.

--------------------------------------

EMILY MILLER: Federal judge rules DC ban on gun carry rights unconstitutional | Fox News

Federal judge rules DC ban on gun carry rights unconstitutional

By Emily Miller
Published July 26, 2014

A federal judge in the District of Columbia on Saturday overturned the city’s total ban on residents being allowing to carry firearms outside their home, declaring the law “unconstitutional” in a landmark decision for gun-rights activists.

Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. wrote in his ruling in Palmer v. District of Columbia that the right to bear arms extends outside the home, therefore gun-control laws in the nation’s capital are “unconstitutional.”

Click here to read the decision.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/07/26/palmer-v-district-columbia-decision/

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.

http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DCT_OPINION.pdf

 

[The Rabbi]

NYC has a carry permit program. It is so unbelievably restrictive as to be useless. First you have to demonstrate need. (What other right is dependent on need?). Second you might get a permit that allows you to carry from your business to the bank and back. That's it. Anywhere else is a violation. Look for DC to copy that.
Illinois just instituted a carry system that is very slow, nor does it allow for reciprocity with other states.

 

[jon_berzerk]

NYC has a carry permit program. It is so unbelievably restrictive as to be useless. First you have to demonstrate need. (What other right is dependent on need?). Second you might get a permit that allows you to carry from your business to the bank and back. That's it. Anywhere else is a violation. Look for DC to copy that.
Illinois just instituted a carry system that is very slow, nor does it allow for reciprocity with other states.

it looks like the judge in this case

is not pissing around with the antis



IV. CONCLUSION

Having reviewed the parties' submissions and the applicable law, and for the above-stated
reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and DENIES
Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment; and 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; and
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.

http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DCT_OPINION.pdf

it will interesting to see if the district appeals

 

[The Rabbi]

Geez. Does that mean I can take my TN carry permit to DC and start carrying there? Darn, I might actually consider a trip to DC under those circumstances!
Currently if you have one round of live ammunition in DC in your car trunk you're going to jail.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Geez. Does that mean I can take my TN carry permit to DC and start carrying there? Darn, I might actually consider a trip to DC under those circumstances!
Currently if you have one round of live ammunition in DC in your car trunk you're going to jail.

yeah knowing these guys they will ban holsters now

--LOL

 

[Little-Acorn]

I'll predict the dragging of feet like Chicago so they can avoid it as long as possible....

Of course. The DC officials will keep harassing gun owners, confiscating their weapons, jailing them etc., until the Court rules a few more times in later cases, telling them to knock it off. Then they'll put some incredibly draggy and obstructive method for granting permits, into place. Finally the Court will tell them to knock THAT off.

In another ten or twenty years, law-abiding citizens in DC might find themselves able to actually carry a gun as the 2nd amendment says they can.

This ruling is just one more step on that long road to 2nd amendment compliance.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Technically this ruling made DC a Constitutional Carry City. From one extreme to the other in 24 hours.

Molon Labe

 

[Wildman]

what a fantastic decision in the name of freedom and liberty for those citizens, let's push for the remaining dominos to keep falling.

oooooh!! BTW.., not one liberantigunner has infested this topic, where did they go ?

 

[martybegan]

The parties do not dispute the basic facts that underlie this action. 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."

I didn't realize that gun laws in D.C. were so restrictive. If you can't take the gun outside of the home, how are you supposed to take it to the shooting range?

I assume that a new gun owner would ideally like to learn how to use his firearm properly. Not being permitted to leave his home with his own gun does not give him that option.

What i want to know is why a retired police officer has more rights than the average citizen. Shouldn't they be required to follow the same laws as other citizens? Shouldn't off duty police officers likewise be held to the same restrictions?

If not, all we do is create a new class of knights, government actors who are the only ones who retain the right to arms. Its amazing how progressives when it comes to this matter are more aligned with feudalism than with republicanism/federalism.

 

[martybegan]

what a fantastic decision in the name of freedom and liberty for those citizens, let's push for the remaining dominos to keep falling.

oooooh!! BTW.., not one liberantigunner has infested this topic, where did they go ?

Weird that they have not come out of the woodwork yet.