saflogo

The District of Columbia has dropped their appeal of a decision that sided with the Second Amendment Foundation in the Palmer vs. DC case allowing “public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home.” That essentially mandated the city adopt a conceal carry permitting structure. But even though the city has backed down, the SAF is vowing to continue to fight the city’s still highly restrictive carry laws . . .

In a press release yesterday,  SAF announced their excitement and dedication.

“While we’re happy to see the city drop their appeal of our earlier victory,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “we were eager to face them in court, as there was no possible way they could have successfully argued in favor of continuing an outright ban on carry in the District. This is one more critical Second Amendment Foundation victory for gun rights,” he added. “But we will continue to keep suing the city of Washington, D.C. over their new carry law that is still an unconstitutional infringement on our Second Amendment rights.”

The District still has a provision on it’s books forcing potential concealed carry permit holders to provide “good cause” or a “valid reason” to obtain a permit. Current law gives the police chief the discretion to accept or deny the reason provided by a citizen of the district. Only a very few permits have been approved so far.

“No public official should enjoy that kind of sway over a citizen’s right to bear arms,” Gottlieb stated. “It creates a manifestly unfair system that is wide open to abuse and favoritism, as we’ve seen in New York, Californiaand elsewhere that insiders and elitists can get permits, but average citizens are routinely given second-class consideration, or no consideration at all.”

“Our intent is to continue our battle for the right to bear arms on behalf of all the citizens, not just a privileged few.”

Unfortunately, the Palmer case is still ongoing. The SAF still has outstanding enforcement motions pending before U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., who handed down the initial Palmer ruling.

 

15 Responses to SAF Vows to Continue Fight Against DC Conceal Carry Laws

  1. The District dropped its appeal because they are afraid they will lose like they did in Heller. This good because the next time someone is arrested for the violation of some absurd DC law like having expended brass in your car that your lawyer could tell them that how would the like to lose another Second Amendment case. Just the threat may cause them to stop enforcing stupid laws.

    • I wondered what the play was. So it’s sort of like NJ putting Shaneen Allen into the diversionary program to avoid defending their unconstitutional laws in court.

      • That only happened after the outcry over Ray “NFL” Rice was allowed into the program despite actually having committing a violent act. It is a textbook case of what Gottlieb contends and we all know… in the eyes of those in power, laws are only applicable to those not in power.

  2. “Unfortunately. Palmer is still pending…”??? The pending enforcement motion contends that the new law enacted after the court’s ruling upholding a right to carry outside the home is a contempt of the court’s decision, as the City enacted the most stringent law they could come up with, and a law which varied little from an earlier carry law that was an essential ban. Bring it on!

    • The problem is that D.C.’s new law may be legal on it’s face but illegal in the way it’s applied. A “facial” challenge is much more easy to litigate; an “as applied” challenge requires every denial to be litigated individually, or close to individually, and decided on its own merits. It’s a mess.

      • That DC is a mess is not really a big surprise to me. The USA, at least the people who live there, would probably be better off if Putin would nuke it. Honestly, we would at least get some fresh faces and ideas after the new elections.

        Liberty Prime is Online. (fallout 3 reference, couldn’t resist)

  3. The need is to bypass local & state jurisdictions an federally mandate national concealed carry and tie it to state funding. This could be accomplished in one legislative session. When will our elected representatives bypass the Castle Doctrine and endorse lawful self defense in public?

  4. The biggest benefactors here are the lawyers on both sides raking in the billable hours. That pisses me off.

      • Why Ralph? More hours for them may mean less hours for you, or are you secretly working on this case?

        IANAL, but I have served on a jury. It’s like staying at a Holiday Inn Express for law stuff.

  5. IANAL, but DC decision to just drop their appeal to the 2nd CA does not change the fact that the Federal District Court’s Judge Scullin has yet to rule on the case, and the plaintiffs motion to hold DC in contempt.
    Here’s the latest filing in the Palmer case:

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=402772&d=1428012029

    A Federal District court ruling that a complete ban is unconstitutional, would be a win.
    I don’t know the consequences for a contempt ruling, any legal experts here care to explain?

    SAF/Gura have filed another challenge to DC’s “new” may issue law, as written now, in ‘Wren/Akerly vs DC’, on behalf of two denied application for CCW, for good cause = self-defense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *