Ruling in Palmer v. D.C handed down, Gura wins again

I don't know whether private signs have the force of law (I think not), but statutory Gun Free Zones must be identified by signs:

§ 22-4502.01. Gun Free Zones; Enhanced Penalty.
(a) All areas within,1000 feet of an appropriately identified public or private day care center, elementary school, vocational school, secondary school, college, junior college, or university, or any public swimming pool, playground, video arcade, youth center, or public library, or in and around public housing as defined in section 3(1) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, approved August 22, 1974 (88 Stat. 654; 42 U.S.C. § 1437a(b)), the development or administration of which is assisted by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, or in or around housing that is owned, operated, or financially assisted by the District of Columbia Housing Authority, or an event sponsored by any of the above entities shall be declared a gun free zone. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "appropriately identified" means that there is a sign that identifies the building or area as a gun free zone.
(b) Any person illegally carrying a gun within a gun free zone shall be punished by a fine up to twice that otherwise authorized to be imposed, by a term of imprisonment up to twice that otherwise authorized to be imposed, or both.
(c) The provisions of this section shall not apply to a person legally licensed to carry a firearm in the District of Columbia who lives or works within 1000 feet of a gun free zone or to members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps of the United States; the National Guard or Organized Reserves when on duty; the Post Office Department or its employees when on duty; marshals, sheriffs, prison, or jail wardens, or their deputies; policemen or other duly-appointed law enforcement officers; officers or employees of the United States duly authorized to carry such weapons; banking institutions; public carriers who are engaged in the business of transporting mail, money, securities, or other valuables; and licensed wholesale or retail dealers.
 
After that stop gap measure instituted by Lanier, I am not sure a stay will be granted. They may have to appeal a denial to CADC in order to get the stay issued. With that policy, I don't see this particular judge issuing a stay. As for your question, the issue is how broadly the scope of the decision was. It didn't state there was an unfettered right to license less carry. It simply stated licenses ought to been issued. So the length of the stay can meet the length of time needed to issue licenses.

For a stay to be issued, isn't there a requirement of a possibility of success on the appeal? They are the only place in the country with a ban on carry, I don't see how they'll prevail on appeal.
 
Since carrying of firearms in DC has essentially been illegal, I doubt you will find any "no guns" signs (other than federal buildings.), nor do I suspect there is any statute about same. That may all change, of course.

The law that was just overturned by the Fed court was passed in 2009. Since any possession of a gun in DC was illegal, whether in your home or carrying, there was no need for a ban on conceal or open carry. Right after the Heller decision DC passed the ban on possession outside the home. They'll try to pass some more unconstitutional laws, that's guaranteed.
 
The law that was just overturned by the Fed court was passed in 2009. Since any possession of a gun in DC was illegal, whether in your home or carrying, there was no need for a ban on conceal or open carry. Right after the Heller decision DC passed the ban on possession outside the home. They'll try to pass some more unconstitutional laws, that's guaranteed.
Actually, they could do just that--pass another blatantly unconstitutional law impeding carry knowing it will get slow-walked through the courts. They'll get another five years from the time the first viable suit is filed.
 
DC City Council Chairman Phil Mendelson emailed me this reaction to the federal court ruling in Palmer that the gun carry ban is unconstitutional: "Because of the District's unique national security concerns, the right to carry a firearm in public must be more heavily restricted than any place else in the nation. Four U.S. presidents have been assassinated by gunfire, and at least five others have been shot at, including Ronald Regan who was seriously wounded in 1981. Neither the Secret Service nor the Capitol Police will disclose all incidents where they have recovered firearms, but we do know that just two years ago someone hit the White House with gunfire, and there are frequent threats on the foreign diplomatic corps."

This is rather hilarious. Washington is special so a ban is ok, screw the Constitution. It's funny he mentions Reagan who was shot in Philadelphia, Kennedy was killed in Dallas, McKinley was in Buffalo, only Garfield and Lincoln were in DC. Attempted assassinations were scattered too.

Lot's of stupid on the DC council, no wonder why it's such a poorly run city.
 
Actually, they could do just that--pass another blatantly unconstitutional law impeding carry knowing it will get slow-walked through the courts. They'll get another five years from the time the first viable suit is filed.

I think there is a chance they let the decision stand and not appeal it. I mentioned earlier in this thread, they could pass a carry law like NJ or HI aka a defacto ban. There are what, 2300 carry permits in NJ, a state with probably 8 million people. They allow it but it's for intents and purposes banned because .00001% of people have the permit.
 
Or crack. Remember mayor Marion Barry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry

The best illustration of the moron's DC residents are, after he was convicted and sent to jail for the crack and other stuff, he was elected to the city council after he got out, then elected mayor again. And he's currently a city council member.

They deserve the sh!t hole DC is. The last mayor Gray was as corrupt as you can get.
 
This is rather hilarious. Washington is special so a ban is ok, screw the Constitution. It's funny he mentions Reagan who was shot in Philadelphia, Kennedy was killed in Dallas, McKinley was in Buffalo, only Garfield and Lincoln were in DC. Attempted assassinations were scattered too.

Lot's of stupid on the DC council, no wonder why it's such a poorly run city.
Reagan was shot in Philadelphia? LOL
Ummm, no.
 
I think there is a chance they let the decision stand and not appeal it. I mentioned earlier in this thread, they could pass a carry law like NJ or HI aka a defacto ban. There are what, 2300 carry permits in NJ, a state with probably 8 million people. They allow it but it's for intents and purposes banned because .00001% of people have the permit.
That's about 2300 more than in Hawaii.
 
This is rather hilarious. Washington is special so a ban is ok, screw the Constitution. It's funny he mentions Reagan who was shot in Philadelphia, Kennedy was killed in Dallas, McKinley was in Buffalo, only Garfield and Lincoln were in DC. Attempted assassinations were scattered too. Lot's of stupid on the DC council, no wonder why it's such a poorly run city.

Reagan was shot outside the Washington Hilton Hotel in Washington DC http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Ronald_Reagan
 
For a stay to be issued, isn't there a requirement of a possibility of success on the appeal? They are the only place in the country with a ban on carry, I don't see how they'll prevail on appeal.

That's not the only basis upon which a stay could be granted. But the reality is if the judge didn't issue it on invalidating the ban, he doesn't plan on issuing it when asked. The CADC will be forced to issue it, and they will do so in on the basis that not granting it sows confusion.

For a different perspective from a law prof, see here. http://joshblackman.com/blog/2014/07/28/failure-to-grant-a-stay-in-d-c-second-amendment-case/
 
That's not the only basis upon which a stay could be granted. But the reality is if the judge didn't issue it on invalidating the ban, he doesn't plan on issuing it when asked. The CADC will be forced to issue it, and they will do so in on the basis that not granting it sows confusion.

For a different perspective from a law prof, see here. http://joshblackman.com/blog/2014/07/28/failure-to-grant-a-stay-in-d-c-second-amendment-case/
Apparently he believes that all convictions and all legal decisions should be stayed pending appeal, even before notice of appeal. No? Why not? Confusion? Statist.
 
Apparently he believes that all convictions and all legal decisions should be stayed pending appeal, even before notice of appeal. No? Why not? Confusion? Statist.

I didn't say I agreed with him, but his view is consistent with many lawyers. Final judgements are not final, they are appealable so the stay should be granted. This is why CADC will grant the stay.
 
The chances of this decision being applied are small, since:

2. The police can be expected to continue their policy of arresting for carry, and it will take another court order to stop the practice.

I've read the order from the Chief of Police in DC to her troops and it explicitly says that officers shall not arrest people for carrying in DC if their gun is legal in DC or another state.
 
Emily miller tweeted out earlier today that the DC ammo ban is still in effect and they will arrest you for it. I'm not sure how the ammo ban is structured in DC, so residents might be ok but everyone outside of DC will be carrying an unloaded gun if they want to carry.
 
Emily miller tweeted out earlier today that the DC ammo ban is still in effect and they will arrest you for it. I'm not sure how the ammo ban is structured in DC, so residents might be ok but everyone outside of DC will be carrying an unloaded gun if they want to carry.

No, that is absurd. I think they mean non licensed residents were still covered under a ban as well as non cow non residents.
 
Now if only Ma could catch up to DC carry laws (strange to say that)
DC, the juggernaut in extreme Statist gun prohibition and confiscation, continues to be rebuked by SCOTUS. MA, NY, CT, CA, CO, WA, etc. should be on notice that individual Rights guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be infringed by Extreme Statism funded by Bloomberg and vilolated by Statist Sheeple willing to submit to government tyranny so long as they are in the Government's favor.
 
No, that is absurd. I think they mean non licensed residents were still covered under a ban as well as non cow non residents.

I don't know the ins and outs of the absurd DC laws. These are the people who will arrest you for an shell casing.

Emily Miller @EmilyMiller · 9h

Keep in mind-- the law that only registered DC gun owners can posess ammunition is still in effect.


Here is her report for the local Fox station in DC where she works. She talks about a need for registered ammo whatever that means, but I don't think it's available to people outside DC.

http://www.myfoxdc.com/clip/10413727/plaintiff-happy-about-overturned-dc-handgun-ban-ruling
 
Last edited:
Emily miller tweeted out earlier today that the DC ammo ban is still in effect and they will arrest you for it. I'm not sure how the ammo ban is structured in DC, so residents might be ok but everyone outside of DC will be carrying an unloaded gun if they want to carry.

No, that is absurd. I think they mean non licensed residents were still covered under a ban as well as non cow non residents.

This is why I asked that question earlier.
How would it be any more absurd than any other law that is still in effect like magazine sizes

Hey I didn't read it... did the ruling cover ammo?
if the ruling didn't strike down the separate law on ammo then it is worthless. The law is still on the books and enforceable until such time as it is struck down.
 
Back
Top Bottom