Skip to comments.Federal District Court Victory for Gura in Palmer v. DC
Posted on 07/26/2014 2:43:54 PM PDT by RKV
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 § 72502.02(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. 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 arenot residents of the District.
(Excerpt) Read more at alangura.com ...
One important difference between this law and the Illinois refusal to make a legal concealed carry law is that this decision just eliminates the current abuse.
“Illinois had been the last state without such a provision but its long-standing ban on concealed weapons was overturned in a federal appeals court, on Constitutional grounds.
“Illinois was required by the court to draft a concealed carry law by July 9, 2013 (including a 30-day extension) at which time the Illinois legislature, over-riding the amendatory veto of the governor who had sought to impose many restrictions, approved concealed carry to begin January 2014, at the latest.”
Washington, D.C. needs such a provision, because in past they have made it clear that they *knew* the law was unconstitutional, but created it anyway, so it would be in effect for years until it was finally thrown out.
And *then*, they said they would just create an equally unconstitutional law that would amount to the same thing, just worded differently, to waste several more years.
Like Illinois, they needed to be given a concrete deadline to make a constitutional licensing law, that would be reviewed by the court before it would go into effect.
The court probably can’t order DC prospectively to pass specific laws because the Constitution puts DC specifica2lly under the supervision of Congress. Separation of powers.
If Congress doesn’t limit the DC Council on this matter, that shows you that the majority in Congress are really gun-grabbers, regardless of show votes and NRA endorsements.
It would not be ordering them to pass specific laws, just requiring them to pass whatever laws while under scrutiny, and with a time limit. And if they fail to meet the timetable, there won’t be *any* gun law in the city.
This was what Illinois was threatened with. “You have until this date (plus a 30 day extension in that case), to pass a law which will be scrutinized by this court to insure it is constitutional.”
The Illinois legislature agreed to do this for the court, and did pass a constitutional law, but their governor decided to tinker with it and add unconstitutional elements. This put their legislature in an odd predicament: either override the governor, or have no gun law. They chose to override.
This would turn D.C.’s not-in-good-faith strategy on its ear.