Alan Gura reports success inVictory in Palmer v. D.C.
The full decision is here, all 19 years of it, but here is what you need to know:
(Emphasis added.) The full decision is here, all 19 years of it, but here is what you need to know:
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.
IANAL, but... Constitutional Carry in DC! Seems appropriate, actually. Look for the Fed .gov to ban it in all Fed-controlled property. Cuz the Smithsonian should obviously be a No Self-Defense Zone.
1 comment:
Evidence that the federal bureaucracy is more powerful than congress: concealed carry was somewhat legalized on National Parks land by act of Congress, making carry in parks be regulated by local laws. Yay. Off I go on a road trip, of course visiting parks. Up I walk to the visitor center at some park where there is ... a no firearms sign because the -building- is a separate Federal facility they think they can still regulate, and back I go to gun-handling in the parking lot... grr.
But it is good to see courts go this way!
-- Erik from Seattle
Post a Comment