DC ban on gun carry overturned!

[BiscuitNaBasket]

I would love to be able to visit DC for a third time while sufficiently able to defend myself from those who would do me harm. This is a great victory for the pro-2nd amendment folks. This is a huge leap in the right direction.

 

[mrjarrell]

Here's a look at it with links to the court documents. This was five years in the making and it'll be a few more before a final ruling.

Firearms carry ban struck down in D.C. - National gun rights | Examiner.com

 

[daddyusmaximus]

Now I may feel comfortable taking my family there.

 

[Expat]

So does this get incorporated against the states once it finishes its climb?

 

[ModernGunner]

this is huge. Bigger than 'huge', whatever that would be.

for the Federal Court of D.C.

Chicago is next stop for this issue, bet your bottom dollar.

 

[BiscuitNaBasket]

this is huge. Bigger than 'huge', whatever that would be.

for the Federal Court of D.C.

Chicago is next stop for this issue, bet your bottom dollar.

Wasn't Chicago already forced to allow carry of firearms outside the home?

 

[rockhopper46038]

Wasn't Chicago already forced to allow carry of firearms outside the home?

Yes, Chicago has been forced to allow the carry of firearms outside the home, although they've had to be dragged kicking and screaming to it. And unfortunately IL was able to get the ruling stayed until they cobbled together a kind of crappy permitting system.

D.C. will probably attempt the same kind of shenanigans, but as of right now it seems that Constitutional Carry is D.C's "law of the land". There must be heads spinning in D.C. right now...

 

[1911ly]

So can you carry now?

 

[TheSpark]

Wow. Huge win for America. It was always ironic that the capitol of the free world violated every citizens constitutional right.

 

[rockhopper46038]

So can you carry now?

Best you do so with a copy of the opinion in your pocket, but it appears so.

 

[Jarhead77]

Sanity in DC? This has to be the end of the world.

 

[mrjarrell]

So can you carry now?

Wouldn't want to try it till you hear from the popo and the local government as to what their response will be. Not worth getting perforated.

 

[1911ly]

Best you do so with a copy of the opinion in your pocket, but it appears so.

Awesome win for the DC residents!

 

[MCgrease08]

Wouldn't want to try it till you hear from the popo and the local government as to what their response will be. Not worth getting perforated.

I'd wager there is someone out there OCing right now. They have Wal-Marts in DC, right?

 

[halfmileharry]

I hope this holds water. I have a feeling the people in DC that want to keep ALL the power are going to appeal every decision until they get their way or figure out a way around it. IT IS WASHINGTON DC ya know.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Remember that guy that OC'd in DC last year or so for some protest? Pretty sure he was arrested and/or lost all his guns?

Do rulings like this have a retroactive effect on prior convictions? Could his arrest, or whatever happened, be overturned as well?

 

[SteveM4A1]

 

[cobber]

Gun control has long roots in the American South where D.C. is.

However, it wasn't just during Jim Crow that gun laws where all the rage. The D.C. gun ban was passed in 1976. Even Chicago is not as hostile to guns as D.C.

Haven't you been chapping SAF's rear for some time now? Hmm. Maybe the NRA filed an amicus brief?

 

[Mark 1911]

I'ze so happy I'ze gots da happy feet

 

[ModernGunner]

Wasn't Chicago already forced to allow carry of firearms outside the home?

Yes. As rockhopper noted. However, as rockhopper also noted, Chicago hasn't only been 'dragging their feet', Emanual and his cronies have been looking for EVERY possible way NOT to issue licenses. The Palmer decision addresses this specific issue.

Further, the Illinois / Chicago baloney does NOT recognize reciprocity with, say Indiana. With non-residents, and makes no actual provision for a non-resident to carry in Illinois. The Palmer decision addresses this issue, as well.

Even further, Palmer addresses the issue of constitutional carry. Which would mean, if this were likewise applied to Illinois / Chicago, not only would lawful non-residents be able to carry in Illinois / Chicago, those non-residents wouldn't even need 'reciprocity' because they wouldn't even need a license from their home State.

So, the issue has now been addressed with the 'worst' anti-gun community, D.C. The next logical step would be to address what was the '2nd worst', but now would move up to 'the worst': Chicago.

This could also preemptively 'force' States that do not currently have reciprocity with Indiana (like Ohio) to provide reciprocity, instead of refusing reciprocity, or forcing an Indiana resident to obtain a non-resident license from somewhere like Utah or Florida.

Even further, the Palmer decision provides a framework for constitutional carry in those areas (the majority of States) that do not recognize constitutional carry.

Lastly, it should ALSO be noted that Palmer further identifies that the RKBA is not 'unlimited', something which even some INGO members falsely claim. Therefore, convicted felons, mentally deranged, and so forth can be (and should be) prohibited from carrying.

So, at least the implications of the Palmer decision are quite huge. And helps provide groundwork to address further issues (as Palmer did citing Heller and McDonald).

Now, just push to get businesses identified as 'places of public access', and that would eliminate the silly 'can't carry in our store' signs. A business that invites the public into it's store should NOT be allowed to preempt the right of the patron to lawfully carry. If a business invites the public to patronize that business then, while not a 'public place' (like a park), it IS a 'place of public access' by their own choice (inviting in the public), and should be subject to the same requirements (allowing carry) as parks (etc.) must.

Each step forward, though maybe small, is a step forward.

Just wanted to clarify the statement. Thanks!