Posted on 07/26/2014 2:43:18 PM PDT by marktwain
Alan Gura reports that the District Court, after nearly five years of stonewalling, has found for the Constitutional right to bear arms outside of the home. It has struck down the prohibitions on carry outside of the home in the District of Columbia, for both residents and non-residents. It took five years and two petitions for a writ of mandamus to obtain this decision. The wording below is from the decision. From alangura.com:
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.
I never thought I would live to see this day!
all federal people, in D.C., just wet their underwear.
The headline should read “permitless carry” not “constitutional carry”. People in D.C. still have to jump through innumerable hoops to simply own a firearm legally.
maybe so, but the rest of the country’s law abiding gun owners don’t.
Too bad I won’t set foot in DC ( &/or MA, CT, MD, NY, NJ, CA); ever. IL, I am still debating as I have yet to fully understand if a an non-res can carry there...
So will out of District residents still get arrested for posession of a single round of ammunition? Or a single black powder cast lead minnie ball?
Thanks Mark. Big difference. Guess the federal people aren’t wetting their underwear today.
I just read the whole decision. It does look like “constitutional carry” for a time, because the judge specifically says it applies to non-residents.
so if am understand ... all law(s) except the Constitution was struck down by this decision?
I read the applicable code that is struck down. The Court struck down the code against carrying in public.
The court also struck down the code against registering a handgun for carry outside the home.
There is an exception in the code for carrying a handgun through the District for a valid recreational purpose, without registering the handgun.
I think it would be hard to argue that you could carry an unloaded handgun without registration through the district for recreation, but not carry a loaded one for Constitutionally protected self defense.
No doubt people will immediately be applying to register handguns for carry for self defense.
It is close to Constitutional carry, but there are ambiguities.
Thank You. Appreciate the clarification.
The BS these clowns in robes come up with is laughable. I respectfully submit the following:
Murdock Vs Pennsylvania 319 USSCR 105
No state can convert a secured liberty (right) to a privilege and issue a license and fee for it
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
While acts of a de facto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law and existing are often held to be binding from reasons of public policy, the acts of a person assuming to fill and perform the duties of an office which does not exist de jure can have no validity whatever in law.
An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
Marbury v. Madison 1803, vol 5, pg 137
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that
a law repugnant to the Constitution is void,
and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
Thank You for the information for myself and anyone attempting to determine what the ruling means.
Is this from The Onion?
Read the lead post. It’s not long.
“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.”
Once again, satire is pointless because reality is weirder. Yes, this is a real ruling, incredible though it seems.
Was my understanding that non-residents must be permitted incorrect?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.