Will Dick Heller Carry in D.C.?

Gun Watch ^ | 27 July, 2014 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Dick Heller (yes the famous Heller of the Supreme Court case) is celebrating the resounding victory in the Palmer v. D.C. carry outside the home case that was released yesterday.    From Dick:

Within minutes of getting home and sitting down at my kitchen table, I received a phone call. It was George Lyon, a plaintiff in the case as well as an attorney. He shared the good news that Judge Scullin, who was appointed by Justice Roberts, had issued a decision striking down the ridiculous and useless restrictions on self-defense with a firearm outside my home.

With George on the phone, we noted that at least for the next few hours (or even days) Washington D.C. joins states like Arizona and Vermont in being “constitutional carry” jurisdictions. George went on to advise against strapping on my Buntline Special lest I run into an ill-informed member of the MPD and wind up “ventilated.”

Dick would not have to parade around with his Buntline special. That could be dangerous. He could however, put it on under a large shirt, go to a few iconic D.C. landmarks, and briefly display it for photographic proof to future generations that for at least a few hours, it was legal to openly carry weapons in the modern District of Columbia!   He has minimal worry, because his handgun is already registered in the District of Columbia.

Dick has shown that he is courageous and smart.

I would love to see those photographs!

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

It would make a great photograph, or a series.

[Red in Blue PA]

The Constitution is as unambiguous as can be with regard to the 2A, yet here we are celebrating that is finally recognized.

[G Larry]

Mr. Heller will have a tail on him like a dinosaur 24/7.

I wouldn’t do anything to draw attention for quite a while!

[marktwain]

Isn’t it worth celebrating?

[marktwain]

So what if they do? He would be doing nothing illegal.

[G Larry]

THEY WILL MAKE SOMETHING UP!!!!

Besides, the judge issued a stay, pending anticipating, continued legal fights.

So, the cops will say he IS doing something “illegal”, and he’ll rot in jail while you sit at home cheering on his behalf.

[marktwain]

You have seen this stay? Who issued it? Please send a link or give a hint where I could find it.

As for making something up, this is not something to be done without help and video rolling.

[ctdonath2]

“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.”

[JackOfVA]

Note that the Court decision applies only to areas within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia. A significant part of DC is Federal Park or memorial territory, plus innumerable Federal buildings, parkways, etc. The decision does nothing to alter federal law or Park Service rules governing firearms in those areas. Some of the federal territory is as small as a few hundred feet on a side.

Hence one could find the odd situation of being legally allowed to carry a pistol on the sidewalk but taking one step onto a (not well marked) federal park area will be illegal.

Until all this is sorted out, one should take extreme caution in open carry in DC.

[JackOfVA]

Le me amend this statement - it may be possible to carry in some DC national park territory, but not all.

Caution is still required.

[marktwain]

I agree. It will be interesting to see if a stay is requested pending appeal, and if an appeal is made.

However, I do not think that there are National Park regulations that prevent the carry of firearms in the DC parks, because or the “Park Carry” bill that was passed in 2008.

[JackOfVA]

The 2008 Park Cary bill helps a lot, but it has some odd provisions about forbidding carry where the NPS has an ‘office’ and that can be a problem in DC.

[G Larry]

The story I heard on radio said the same judge who issued this ruling, included a stay, since it was obvious it would be challenged.