SAF sues DC for carry permits

[tbrenke]

<D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson, chairman of the Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, had not seen the lawsuit but said he disagrees with the basic premise.

"Mr. Gura is treading uncharted ground claiming that the Second Amendment offers the right to carry," he said. >


I think Mr. Phil Mendelson needs to read it again.
the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[automatic slim]

Mendelson claims that D.C. being the home of the President, Congress and the Diplomatic corp is reason enough not to carry. D.C. housed the same personnel from 1776-1977 and it wasn't a problem then.

[dldeuce]

"Mr. Gura is treading uncharted ground claiming that the Second Amendment offers the right to carry,"

I'd like to ask this guy how he believes you can possibly "bear arms" if you can't carry them out of your house? I still agree with him though. We're treading on uncharted waters to get the government to recognize we have a 2nd amendment right at all.

[Tubby45]

Don't get excited. This will be shot down.

[mcp1810]

Actually Tubby I think they have a pretty good chance. D.C. is a kind of unique situation. It is not a state. It has limited self governance, and that itself is determined by federal law. There is no conflicting state constitution, and there is no "state" to claim that "State's Rights" are an issue here.
This should strictly come down to how the court interprets "bear" in the context of the Second Amendment.

[walvord]

I wish them good luck and hope they win.

[Tombstone55]

We did not recieve the right to bear arms from our governement. It is a God given right that cannot be taken away.

[DaveH]

Don't get excited. This will be shot down.

Hum? Wouldn't be to sure 'bout that.

Alan Gura did ok on Heller.

Lot folks didn't like the way he took just one issue at a time, defusing critics by a legalese versions of "You might be right, but this is not about that. It's only about.... We'll need to study/litigate that later"

Avoided a bunch of potentially inflammatory sidetracking.

[Daddy Warcrimes]

I'd like to ask this guy how he believes you can possibly "bear arms" if you can't carry them out of your house?

They would have you believe that the term "bear arms" meant to bear arms under the direction of the state while serving in the militia. (i.e. you have a right to join the National Guard according to them)

[Tubby45]

Hum? Wouldn't be to sure 'bout that.

I hope I'm proven wrong.

[tinkerinWstuff]

They would have you believe that the term "bear arms" meant to bear arms under the direction of the state while serving in the militia. (i.e. you have a right to join the National Guard according to them)

I believe if you go back to the Heller case, that arguement was shot down in the SCOTUS ruling. Now there is preceeding and "settled" case law. Where've you been?

[DaveH]

I believe if you go back to the Heller case, that arguement was shot down in the SCOTUS ruling. Now there is preceeding and "settled" case law. Where've you been?

SCOTUS confirmed our POV that 2A is an individual right in Mr. Gura's first case -- Heller.

Mr. Gura filed another lawsuit about the limited "list" of guns one could legally own. DC folded as they knew they had a loser case.

If he wins here, it will be three strikes for DC.

The other possibility is that congress might weigh in, as they have shown sign of getting fed up with DC's "massive resistance" to 2A.

[press1280]

Already running:
http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...y-permits.html

Not sure how I can combine the threads, maybe a mod can help?

[GHFLRLTD]

As some of you may or may not know -

Alan Gura filed a lawsuit on 6 August 2009 in U.S. District Court on behalf of four people who want the right to carry and conceal weapons for self-defense.

He has 4 plaintiffs - three D.C. residents: Tom G. Palmer, George Lyon and Amy McVey. D.C. police rejected the gun registration applications of all three when they informed police that they intended to carry their loaded guns outside of their homes. Palmer and Lyon were also plaintiffs in the 2003 lawsuit.

The lawsuit seeks to afford the right to carry a gun to non-District residents who have gun permits issued elsewhere. The fourth person in the complaint, Edward Raymond, a law school student who lives in New Hampshire, was arrested in the District in 2007 for carrying a loaded handgun in his car when he was stopped for speeding. Raymond had a permit to carry the gun in Maryland and Florida. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor unregistered gun.

The above information was in the 8 August 2009 Washington Post.

On Saturday, 15 August, the Washington Post (AKA the WaPo) had the following editorial -

Gunning for the District
For some gun advocates, securing the right to keep and bear arms at home wasn't enough.

washingtonpost.com

IF TOM PALMER and his fellow plaintiffs have their way, they'll soon be carrying loaded handguns through the streets of the nation's capital.

Mr. Palmer, three other individuals and the Second Amendment Foundation sued the District last week, arguing that city laws that "ban registration of handguns to be carried for self-defense by law-abiding citizens" are unconstitutional. Mr. Palmer, a resident of the District, is asking Judge Henry Kennedy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to strike down the prohibition. The lawsuit also asks Judge Kennedy to nullify laws that prohibit non-District residents from registering their weapons and obtaining handgun carry permits. The plaintiffs are represented by the same lawyer who argued successfully last year before the Supreme Court against District laws that essentially prevented residents from keeping functional firearms at home for self-defense. They now argue that the right to keep and carry firearms for self-defense extends beyond the home and that licensed owners can be prohibited only from carrying handguns into "sensitive places" such as schools or government buildings.

This argument should be rejected as wrong on the law and wrong as a matter of public policy. In the landmark 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the justices narrowly tailored the decision to recognize an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-protection in the home. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, made clear that the decision to strike down the District's law pertaining to guns in the home should not be read to discredit all other gun regulation.

"From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," Justice Scalia wrote. "For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."

No right may be exercised without restrictions. Just as there is no First Amendment right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, neither may the Second Amendment be exercised without serious consideration of public safety. Prohibiting guns in schools, courtrooms and government buildings is a no-brainer. But it also makes no sense from a safety perspective to sanction the carrying of such weapons on city streets, where everyday clashes over a fender bender can suddenly turn deadly if weapons are at hand.

The majority of states have passed laws allowing their citizens to carry weapons in public. It is their sovereign right to adopt such policies, as it must be the District's right to pass laws that make sense for those who live, visit and work in the seat of government. Common sense and constitutionality must not be made mutually exclusive.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

This editorial led to a number of comments being made by readers, including yours truely - GHF_LRTLD.

One of the comments contain much more detail on what happened involving Mr. Raymond -

My name is Edward Raymond and I am one of the plaintiffs in this case. I am a Democrat, African-American male 3rd year law student who, after being profiled by the Metropolitan Police Department and arrested for having my legally registered firearm in my vehicle, is now an activist in the fight to protect fundamental rights clearly protected by the U.S. Constitution. As a concealed carry permit holder in the adjacent jurisdictions and inadvertently entering less than a mile in to the District, I find it unreasonable for my $50k+ vehicle to be confiscated (DC ultimately lost its forfeiture claim 2 years later) merely because the rogue government of the District chooses to restrict my right to self-preservation. People ask why someone as smart as myself had the need to carry a firearm and chose to enter the District. First, I was not in law school at the time. Second, I am a business owner who made large cash deposits and required protection, hence the business purpose permit granted by State Police of MD. I was following my GPS in my vehicle and with the shortest route including a DC street, it took me on New Hampshire Ave. This would, in my opinion, provide the basis for the District to honor the 2nd Amendment granted to all citizens of the US and no prosecute law-abiding citizens for exercising their fundamental fight. The 2nd Amendment during the time of its drafting did not intend the Amendment to be enforced differently among the various jurisdictions purely on the prerogative of the local executives. Other jurisdictions have carry laws. Why wouldn't all of the calamity that will occur as predicted by the Post and other anti-gun critics, have already happen in those jurisdictions already abiding by the 2nd Amendment?? These places also accommodate federal buildings, Congressmen and Senators without regular assassination attempts or Wild Wild West shootouts!! edwardra@hotmail.com

---------------------------------------

Perhaps we should reach out to him, and let him know about us...

[press1280]

The comments are now closed, I guess the author's "blood in the streets" and the 2A "only applies to self defense in the home" arguments are being taken apart yet again so it's time for them to quit.