Palmer vs DC - WIN! Ban on Carry declared unconstitutional

[Molly B.]

http://alangura.com/2014/07/victory-in-palmer-v-d-c/

Victory in Palmer v. D.C.

Posted on July 26, 2014 by alangura

Justice never sleeps…. not even on a Saturday afternoon, when this opinion was just handed down.

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.

In 2012, I won Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012), which struck down Illinois total ban on the carrying of defensive handguns outside the home. With this decision in Palmer, the nation’s last explicit ban of the right to bear arms has bitten the dust. Obviously, the carrying of handguns for self-defense can be regulated. Exactly how is a topic of severe and serious debate, and courts should enforce constitutional limitations on such regulation should the government opt to regulate. But totally banning a right literally spelled out in the Bill of Rights isn’t going to fly. My deepest thanks to the Second Amendment Foundation for making this victory possible and to my clients for hanging in there. Congratulations Americans, your capital is not a constitution-free zone.

[Molly B.]

Our heartfelt congratulations to Alan Gura and the Second Amendment Foundation!!

[RoadyRunner]

Woot! Thanks for the good news!

[RoadyRunner]

I guess they also have to allow ammo as well..... Wasn't there someone a while ago that got charged with having fired brass in their car?

[blazzinbird]

So does this mean DC is going shall issue?

[RoadyRunner]

Some sites are reporting constitutional carry, until a law is put in place to regulate carry. Not sure myself though.

[kwc]

Fantastic!

 

And I love this statement: "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."

 

[Marie]

Woo hoo! It seems non-residents are allowed to carry, too.

[Gamma]

http://i.imgur.com/icDAk.gif

 

Now, if he could have just got that non-resident part of the decision included for Illinois...

[paulgl26]

Yes

 

 

 

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[Bud]

This is such a HUGE victory

 

May God Bless and Keep Alan Gura!

[Talonap]

Is it possible for DC to appeal?

[Gamma]

The problem is, they only invalidated the carry provisions. One would still have to comply with all the registration and licensing etc to even possess a firearm or ammo. No non-residents (other than the ROCstars) are likely to be carrying anytime soon, and there are I suspect a vanishingly small number of people who have gone through the wringer to legally own a handgun in DC.

[Bud]

The problem is, they only invalidated the carry provisions. One would still have to comply with all the registration and licensing etc to even possess a firearm or ammo. No non-residents (other than the ROCstars) are likely to be carrying anytime soon, and there are I suspect a vanishingly small number of people who have gone through the wringer to legally own a handgun in DC.

That was exactly the intent of the lawsuit, to invalidate the unconstitutional ban on carrying a firearm for personal defense.

 

It was a total win.

 

"Always with the negative waves, Moriarty?"

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xyh-JpWdGmQ

[lee n. field]

 

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

 

Woo Hoo!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE

[Lou]

Another ban bites the dust.

[1700715]

God Bless America, Awesome!!

[wtr100]

Some sites are reporting constitutional carry, until a law is put in place to regulate carry. Not sure myself though.

 

 

I would NOT be willing to try that

[wtr100]

Is it possible for DC to appeal?

 

of course but there is a risk if they lose like IL chose not to appeal

[defaultdotxbe]

 

Is it possible for DC to appeal?

 

of course but there is a risk if they lose like IL chose not to appeal

 

Since DC was the last total ban they have nothing left to lose by appealing

[bmyers]

Will this court ruling affect other states and having to issue license/permits to non-residents?

[Gamma]

Is it possible for DC to appeal?

They won't appeal, they'll just reinstate the technical issuance of carry permits under a "may issue" scheme and then only issue them to VIPs as they see fit. Which will possibly start another round of litigation.

 

Will this court ruling affect other states and having to issue license/permits to non-residents?

District court orders don't have much weight in establishing precedence.

[Molly B.]

Is it possible for DC to appeal?

 

 

Yes.

[lockman]

Fantastic!

[tkroenlein]

 

Is it possible for DC to appeal?

They won't appeal, they'll just reinstate the technical issuance of carry permits under a "may issue" scheme and then only issue them to VIPs as they see fit. Which will possibly start another round of litigation.

Will this court ruling affect other states and having to issue license/permits to non-residents?

District court orders don't have much weight in establishing precedence.

Did you read the opinion?

[lockman]

Nothing would surprise me, but the district court used the Heller & McDonald opinions and very strongly stated you can reach no other conclusion.

[Tango7]

[Chief Illiniwek]

Just got home and saw this....excellent news!!

[skinnyb82]

They'll appeal. They're too arrogant to not appeal this loss and the odds of them prevailing or coming out on the losing end but having the panel ruling overturned on en banc are too great for the District to not appeal this ruling. Even if they do enact some draconian may issue scheme, it is still a loss for them at the district level and remember that Lanier is the reason why we have Heller in the first place. The District might get lucky on appeal by drawing a panel of Dem appointees. The number of active Circuit Judges for the D.C. Circuit is 7 vs. 4 Republican appointees. Dem appointed Judges control the Circuit now. Senior Circuit Judges (Randolph, Silberman, Buckley...who's labeled "inactive" as in he does not hear cases, ever, so don't even count him, Williams, Ginsburg, and Sentelle) sit on panels but are not considered "active." Lanier will feel empowered by Obama stacking CADC with characters like Judge Millett (former clerk for CA9 Judge Tang, former Assistant SG for Clinton, former appellate staff at DoJ Civil Rights Division), Judge Pillard (former Assistant Counsel for NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Assistant SG for the Clinton Admin, former Professor at Georgetown School of Law), Judge Wilkins (thanks to the Honorable Judge Wilkins, prior to actually becoming a judge, he sued Maryland and we now have the term "driving while black." Confirmed as district judge in 2010 and in about 2.5 years, elevated to the Circuit by...Obama to replace Judge Sentelle). You think D.C. is gonna pass up a 47% chance that one Dem appointee will be drawn to sit on the appellate panel, a 22% chance that two Dem appointees will be drawn, and a 10.4% chance that ALL THREE Circuit Judges will be Dem appointees? I don't. That takes Senior Judges into account and if none of the Senior Judges sit on the panel, they cannot participate in the en banc rehearing process as per Circuit Rules. This is EXACTLY what may happen in Halbig v. Sebelius.

[C0untZer0]

I don't think DC will appeal, I think most of the gun control folks were scared to death that Madigan would appeal Moore/ Shepard - I'm even of the opinion that they asked her not to, because they were afraid of Moore, and Posner's verbiage becoming the law of the land.

 

I think they're just as afraid of Palmer. Why have the case go any higher with even more potential to hurt the gun control cause?

 

It also seems kind of senseless to appeal - if the court didn't hear Woollard or Kwong, why would they hear Palmer?