Federal judge declares D.C. ban on carrying handguns in public unconstitutional

[NickB79]

Source: Washington Post

A federal judge has declared that one of the District’s principal gun control laws is unconstitutional and ordered enforcement halted.

The ruling by Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr., made public Saturday, orders the city to end its prohibition against carrying a pistol in public.

It was not immediately clear Saturday night what immediate effect the order would have.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/federal-judge-overturns-dc-handgun-ban/2014/07/26/906bc366-1534-11e4-98ee-daea85133bc9_story.html#

[Spitfire of ATJ]

1. Ewwwww!!!!

I smell gun nut jizz.

[Ruby the Liberal]

29. !!

Hilarious.

[candelista]

36. How do you know the scent?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

37. Remember when they got to carry on trains?

[IronGate]

39. They don't get to carry on their persons on a train,

they can be carried in storage in a secure case.

http://www.amtrak.com/firearms-in-checked-baggage

[Spitfire of ATJ]

41. It was the NEWS that caused the premature discharge.

[IronGate]

42. Got it.

I misunderstood what you were saying.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

43. You wouldn't if you saw the puddles.

[IronGate]

44. Now that's an image I could do without. nt.

[VanillaRhapsody]

2. Fuck!

this is ridiculous....they won't be satisfied till everyone in church comes strapped....

[mountain grammy]

3. Madness, complete and utter madness.

What is this the fucking wild, wild west?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

35. There are no better or more fitting words.

[blackspade]

4. This will have a happy ending....

[Raine1967]

5. Jeebus.

This wasn't enough for them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

I would wager that this ruling will not include federal government buildings inside Washington DC.

I will tell you this, the results of this ruling if it is allowed to stand will not be pretty. DC passed these laws for a reason, and these laws have led it to FAR more safe than before they were enacted.

Not happy about this at all.

[Recursion]

55. What reason did they pass them for?

I lived in DC in the 90s. The ban sure as hell didn't do anything.

[Raine1967]

57. I wasn't here in the 90's.

I know the crime rate has dropped since the 90's. Murders have fallen drastically.

Hi BTW, I was wondering how you have been. I haven't seen you around lately. I hope all is going well for you!

[Recursion]

59. Just been busy. actually back in DC now!

Just got back from Shake Shack. Haven't had a burger in a year. I should have a Lounge thread soon with some new pics

[Raine1967]

60. Welcome back, Recursion! eom.

[Big_Mike]

6. I read the ruling

He quotes heavily from District of Columbia vs. Heller and City of Chicago vs. McDonald as well as the ruling from the 9th Circuit in Peruta vs. County of San Diego.

Basically, I do not see how he can rule otherwise, given what has been written in the above decisions. Heller found the right to keep arms is an individual right, and that part was affirmed by all nine SC justices, not just Scalia and Thomas. McDonald allowed bearing the weapon in the home in the 50 states, and Peruta answers whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second amendment to carry a firearm in public for defense. CA Attorney General Kamala Harris is an en banc hearing by all 11 Justices regarding the decision. San Diego County has no intention of appealing further, but as of today, there has been no answer by the Court to the AG's request.

Granted, at this time Peruta only applies to the states covered by the 9th Circuit, but now this decision answers whether citizens of DC and those who are licensed from outside DC, can carry weapons within the District.

edit: deleted reference to Alan Gura.

[elleng]

54. The big issue here, it appears, (and thanks for reading the decision,

which I haven't done,) would be with Peruta. 'In the home' is very different from 'in public for defense,' and I hope (more than 'hope') that it does not prevail.

[geomon666]

7. As long as you don't bring a gun into the courtroom right?

Fucking hypocrites.

[tomm2thumbs]

8. ok, I'll play. Maybe they should modify the ban to exclude a single-shot flint-lock muzzleloader

I'm sure this is what the founders had in mind... given that is ALL they had in mind



Heck, I'll even give them a muzzleloader rifle too.

[SkatmanRoth]

10. And Freedom of the Press only applies to hand presses with lead type

The founding fathers had no concept of the internet.

[tomm2thumbs]

11. (hiding my hand-carry radiation bullet handgun... )

for now...

now let's go yell 'FIRE' in a crowded movie house and praise our right to do so... oh, wait

[SkatmanRoth]

12. YELL

Yelling fire in a theater is taking an overt action.

Carrying concealed arms is a passive action.

Most people have a voice that they carry into the theater, but is only a problem if they yell 'FIRE'. So by your logic we should ban voices in theaters.

[tomm2thumbs]

13. no comment on my special

radiation bullet? I'd rather not split the thread into two different responses. I'll wait to reply so I don't miss it.

[SkatmanRoth]

14. The Second Ammendment to the Constitution does not mention guns

Your selection of arms is irrelevant.

[tomm2thumbs]

15. so is child porn free speech in your opinion?

your choice of not answering questions is quite delicious....

[SkatmanRoth]

16. Red Herring much?

[tomm2thumbs]

17. yes, quite delicious

as was my predicted lack of answering questions

thanks for confirming

[tomm2thumbs]

18. textbook case

As you will often see in discussions of this sort, the first one who throws in the red herring (ie. 'printing with lead type vs. internet') is usually the first one to claim the other person of using a red herring.

[Duckhunter935]

26. so whats different

either the fist or second does not state the type of technology. Back when the 2nd amendment was ratified the civilian population had military spec weapons. Today there have been limits to that already put in place. Same with free speech.

[tomm2thumbs]

27. I think the answer

may be simple.

No right in the Constitution is absolute.
There are always limits.
And those limits are determined by humans in a given time and place.

[Duckhunter935]

28. yes and there are already limits

you want a total ban not limits, just say it.

[tomm2thumbs]

31. I'm actually not interested enough to buy myself a handgun

but our family has always had guns. I am indifferent to them. However I don't think people should be running around in public with loaded uzi-style weapons, or any variation on any weapon they deem appropriate. So given that every right in the Constitution has limits, I'd say the law will eventually allow the city to impose some reasonable limit, but not permit an outright ban across the board.

[24601]

24. I'll concede you may be our local expert on child porn, but deny you have any expertise on the law.

Otherwise you would know that the 1st amendment generally protects most private adult access to pornography less that which crosses the threshold of obscenity, and child pornography.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=458&invol=747

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/pornography-obscenity

Per the 1st Amendment Center (at Vanderbilt Univ & the Newseum)

"There are two types of pornography that receive no First Amendment protection — obscenity and child pornography. The First Amendment generally protects pornography that does not fall into one of these two categories — at least for adult viewers. Sometimes, material is classified as “harmful to minors” even though adults can have access to the same material."

[tomm2thumbs]

25. ah, that little word of yours

'most'

thank you

[beevul]

53. People are directly and inherently harmed in the making of child porn.

People are directly and inherently harmed in the making of child porn.'

Its existence is proof of that harm.


How exactly does that parallel to the carrying of a holstered firearm, whether concealed or openly carried?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

38. Damn shame about that "well regulated militia" part....

You know how conservatives are into deregulation.

[24601]

22. So their intent was military state of the art individual weapon. Thanks for admitting it was not a

collective right tied to membership in a militia.

When you know the intent, it's then easy to apply old law to modern technology.

[tomm2thumbs]

23. Thanks for admitting I'm correct

I appreciate it.

[SkatmanRoth]

9. This must be the backlash we have been told to expect

Yup

[onehandle]

19. Strapping on my backpack nuke (arms) right now and heading into DC...

What Domestic Terrorists Are Teaching Our Children

[tomm2thumbs]

20. is it the red, white and blue one? I like that one best

Last edited Sun Jul 27, 2014, 09:27 AM - Edit history (1)

<g>

your sarcasm tag was understood - you gave me a chuckle, and harkened me back to that Saturday Night Live episode where everyone was walking around with nukes in the general store.

[Chan790]

21. This could end up being a cluster-fuck.

This isn't going to stand well...DC's handgun prohibition was not principally, but nevertheless intentionally, in place to reduce complications resulting from the myriad legal entanglements that occur when you have entire large areas of the city which are not marked but fall under the jurisdiction of federal agencies with differing legal-statuses for firearms and their own police forces. (DC has 27 operating jurisdictional law-enforcement agencies within its borders) The US Park Service and Capitol Grounds explicitly still ban carrying handguns (I don't know about other LE agencies)...and nobody in the federal government really wants that to change. (Coincidentally, the area under control of the Capitol Hill Police (and thus the exclusion zone) is a lot larger than people realize...it extends well off the Capitol Grounds and into surrounding streets, containing not only the US Capitol but also the areas around the Office Buildings and Library of Congress.) It's what keeps people with handguns off the doorstep of the US Capitol and the White House, away from the Monuments and Smithsonian...and a lot of the rest of the non-residential areas of the city. It effects a necessary safety buffer for the public welfare and maintenance of public order. It's going to create a patchwork of disparate legal-statuses for handguns across the city--literally block-by-block in the Capitol Hill and Downtown areas of the city.

This is going to become apparently an issue when a person walking down the 1600-block of E St NW where it would be legal to carry a handgun takes one step past the curb onto the 1700-block of E St NW entering a national park and the exclusion zone around the White House and is now a felon punishable by years of imprisonment--if the US Secret Service or US Park Police doesn't shoot them dead on sight. (Both have 24-hour sniper coverage of the area. It's scant 2 blocks from the White House on the Constitution Ave. NW side where you don't know you're that close to the White House until--viola!-there it is: South Lawn of the White House.)

This isn't a good thing for gun owners, it's a very bad thing for gun owners which is going to result in a lot of attempting-to-be-responsible gun-owners to potentially become felons and lose RKBA, a lot of police confrontations and potentially a few shootings. More likely, an Act of Congress will quietly be crafted to invalidate the ruling; slipped into something innocuous and passed without fanfare to maintain the desired status-quo without raising the ire of the NRA or RKBA activists.

[S_B_Jackson]

30. Legally, I don't think it will be quite the cluster-fuck that you claim...

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/guns-national-parks-firearms-now-allowed-yellowstone-yosemite/story?id=9910171
firearms are already allowed in National Parks due to a change in federal law that went into effect in 2010. Put simply, if the locale in which a National Park is situated allows the carry (whether concealed or open) of firearms in parks, then so too is it allowed in National Parks.

The Washington Monument, Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials, and the WWII, Iwo Jima, Korean War, Vietnam, and Martin Luther King Memorials would be open to carry while the federal courts, Capitol Building, and White House areas would need to be signed against carrying. Washington DC police will need to be trained to know what is and is not legal as well as the best method of low-intensity interaction with those legally carrying firearms.

Since it rarely is a problem in other jurisdictions - with the notable exception of Philadelphia - I believe that DC police can be properly trained if the DC City Council and Chief Lanier choose to make it a priority.

[atreides1]

45. Why not open carry in all places in DC

I personally don't think that special privileges should be given to either federal courts or the Capitol Building!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

40. Oh hell,...you KNOW Bubba and Skeeter are loadin' up the truck with ammo and beer now.

[VA_Jill]

32. Is Scullin

Irish for Scalia? /snark

[Demeter]

33. Is it a sin to pray that Karma runs over his Dogma?

[Hoppy]

34. Rulings and legislation like this will continue until one or two of the fucktards

in Congress or a couple of judges get a stray bullet in their ass.

This would be similar to the situation with the water contamination in West Virginia. State lawmakers were all for dumping whatever mining companies wanted in the river, as long as the campaign contributions kept coming in.

After the water contamination in W.V., some lawmakers are beginning to think (yeah, I know), "That's me and my grand kids drinking that water."

Also, a couple of newspaper photos of wackos like Open Carry Texas carrying pistols on the streets of Washington D.C. may sober them up a bit.

[atreides1]

46. Watchout

I made the same speculation and some clown alerted on my post...and a jury voted to hide it! But I guess in retrospect my post was a little more disturbing then yours.

[Hoppy]

47. I am not promoting such activities but sooner or later it will happen

[UTUSN]

48. Uh, what happened to local jurisdiction?!1 n/1

[hack89]

51. Local governments still have to obey the Constitution

which is one of the reasons we have a court system - to ensure our rights are respected at every level of government.

[Recursion]

56. Sadly, DC home rule has always been a joke

I'm generally skeptical of gun control, but I'm also sick of DC being a Federal football...

[sinkingfeeling]

49. And the craziness continues.

[IronGate]

50. DC police chief Cathy Lanier

has told her officers to recognize all out of state carry permits and not to arrest them.

[Hoyt]

52. Welcome the likes of Zimmerman, Michael Dunn, Curtis Reeves to DC.

Law-abiding gun owners right up until they murdered an unarmed kid carrying candy, a kid playing music too loud, and a father texting his kid in a movie theater.

Just what DC needs, yahoos toting gunz to celebrate their "rights."

[Marrah_G]

58. Gee what could go wrong?