D.C. Second Amendment Case Moves Forward

Gun Watch ^ | 19 October, 2014 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

In July of 2014, the ban on carrying guns outside the home in the District of Columbia was struck down as violating the second amendment of the Constitution.   The judge granted a stay to the District government. 

In September, the District government passed emergency legislation that it claimed would meet Judge Scullin's requirements for a constitutional law.   The law contained numerous absurd restrictions.   On 2 October, Alan Gura filed a motion asking that the court block the implementation of the emergency law.  From wamu.org:

In a blistering court filing, attorney Alan Gura argues that the Council's bill — which limits concealed carry permits to residents who can prove they face a personal threat and restricts where they can travel with their handguns — does not meet the requirements of the late-July ruling in which Judge Frederick Scullin said the city's ban on carrying guns was unconstitutional. 

"The Court's order specifically instructed, in accordance with Supreme Court precedent, that the right to carry handguns is rooted in a constitutional self-defense interest. Yet [D.C. officials] have replaced their 'no permits are available' handgun carry regime with 'no permits are available merely for self-defense, and not unless we think, in our complete discretion, that it's a good idea,'" he wrote.

Judge Scullin heard the District governments arguments that he reconsider his ruling on October 17.    He denied that request.  From washingtoncitypaper.com:

A District lawyer argued, in part, that the second amendment just guarantees the right to own a gun, not to carry that gun in public. Ultimately, according to the Legal Times, the judge called the District's arguments "somewhat disingenuous" and questioned whether the lawyers had thoroughly read through his decision.

A response to Alan Gura's motion is expected next week.   The stay originally granted by Judge Scullin ends on 22 October.   If Judge Scullin rules that the emergency legislation is unconstitutional, the District of Columbia may once again enjoy the rights protected by the second amendment.

Alan Gura

Courts tend to move deliberately, so it is possible that Judge Scullin will grant more time for the D.C. government to present their case.  He has already granted them 90 days. 

His original ruling was very clear, however, and the emergency legislation does not meet his requirements, as I read them.   The next few days could be interesting.

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

[marktwain]

I pray that God grant Judge Scullin courage to do his duty.

[cuban leaf]

A District lawyer argued, in part, that the second amendment just guarantees the right to own a gun, not to carry that gun in public.

---

That is a crack up. “Bear arms” relates to the latter point more than the former. If you can’t carry a gun in public, it’s preatty hard to “bear” the gun.

Gawd these people think we are stupid.

[fruser1]

I’d actually go further. The right to “bear” arms doesn’t simply mean the right to march in formation while spinning a rifle around with fancy moves.

You’re actually allowed to fire the damned thing.

[MrB]

But how will thugs be able to have free exercise of their cultural tendencies if all their intended victims have the means to defend themselves?

It’s “racist”, I tell you!

[Pecos]

Yes, it is. A number of gun laws on the books were originally based on preventing black people from owning guns for self-protection. And the party of the Klan and Jim Crow laws keeps ‘em down on the plantation.

[MileHi]

Many thanks to Alan Gura.

[ctdonath2]

“Keep” also means continued ownership of ones you own, even if changing jurisdictions. I’ve been wondering of late whether anyone is pursuing the issue of moving from an NFA-friendly state to an NFA-hostile one.