Dick_Heller_100

By Dick Heller

In the aftermath of District of Columbia v. Heller, many residents in the nation’s capitol have been jousting with the the overbearing “Mother-knows-what’s-best-for-you” attitude about our Constitutional rights. Even though D.C.’s mayor city council deeply desire to be a state, they aren’t willing to do what a state must do when they lose a Supreme Court case. The Heller decision, and the cases that followed such as McDonald v Chicago and Moore v Madigan, made it abundantly clear that keepinging D.C. residents defenseless outside their homes was unconstitutional . . .

My friend Tim McNabb and his wife are here in Washington D.C. Last night, during dinner, we were talking about the pending Palmer v. District of Columbia deception and the arrogance of the city council. Today, we returned from “The Nation’s Gun Show” in Chantilly, Virginia where truly free citizens are able to openly carry…as well as buy guns, sell guns and obtain a concealed carry license. Tim wanted to buy a spare magazine for the firearm he carries in his native Missouri, but decided he wasn’t willing to risk committing a felony by transporting it into D.C.  I’m used to this kind of crap having lived here for 40 years, but when I saw my friend decided against doing something that ought to be perfectly legal, I was P.O.’d.

Within minutes of getting home and sitting down at my kitchen table, I received a phone call. It was George Lyon, a plaintiff in the case as well as an attorney. He shared the good news that Judge Scullin, who was appointed by Justice Roberts, had issued a decision striking down the ridiculous and useless restrictions on self-defense with a firearm outside my home.

With George on the phone, we noted that at least for the next few hours (or even days) Washington D.C. joins states like Arizona and Vermont in being “constitutional carry” jurisdictions. George went on to advise against strapping on my Buntline Special lest I run into an ill-informed member of the MPD and wind up “ventilated.”

Reading the decision, I note that this judge did a great job of both summarizing and fortifying the logic of recent 2nd Amendment case law. Here is my second favorite quote:

This question is not difficult to answer. As the Seventh Circuit stated in Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012), “[a] blanket prohibition on carrying gun[s] in public prevents a person from defending himself anywhere except inside his home; and so substantial a curtailment of the right of armed self-defense requires a greater showing of justification than merely that the public might benefit on balance from such a curtailment, though there is no proof that it would.”

Here is my favorite:

In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny. Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional.

Congratulations George and everyone else involved with the case. I am going to celebrate with a Nutter Butter and another cup of coffee.

Recommended For You

82 Responses to I’m Dick Heller and I Approve This Crushing Defeat Of Worthless Gun Laws

  1. I am somewhat amused that Dick Heller is praising “Constitutional Carry” given that he banned me from his Facebook page after I took exception to his post saying that only people with a government issued permission slip should be allowed to openly carry firearms in public.

    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don’t carry a purse.

    “[A] right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 – Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

    “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. 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. 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.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 – Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.

    “We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.” McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020 – Supreme Court (2010) at 3050.

    “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons…” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 – Supreme Court (1897) at 282

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

    • I think that what you are alluding to is the theory that the various branches of government would collude with one another as Patrick Henry predicted, thus resulting in an erosion of essential liberties. I consider most of the court rulings and defenses of enumerated constitutional liberties to just plain suck.

      • “I consider most of the court rulings and defenses of enumerated constitutional liberties to just plain (treasonous) suck.

        Fixed it for you.

        • Thank you. That raises an interesting question in that should idiotic politicians who enact legislation later to be found Unconstitutional be tried for on treason charges?

        • I would say there should be some sort of charge when it can be demonstrated to be willful. E.g., supreme court strikes down something similar and you do so out of defiance or don’t repeal after a letter from a civil rights group pointing out your law has been ruled unconstitutional elsewhere–boom! Jail. Get cuffed at your next meeting by a federal marshal.

    • Wow Charles, Maybe he deleted your post because it’s just an advertisement to beg for money. Your home page has no less than SEVEN pleas for money. Then I clicked on the link about the current status of the case and guess what I found? Here is the first line.

      “Lawsuits cost money, mine is no exception. Please Donate.”

      Shameless.

      • I never posted anything on Heller’s Facebook page asking for money. And unlike the NRA and SAF and pretty much every other so called gun-rights group, I do not constantly bombard my members with requests for money. In fact, this past year I have sent out just one fundraiser.

        So much for your lame attempt to change the subject which is Dick Heller’s former opposition to Constitutional Carry.

        Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don’t carry a purse.

        “[A] right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 – Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

        “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. 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. 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.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 – Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.

        “We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.” McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020 – Supreme Court (2010) at 3050.

        “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons…” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 – Supreme Court (1897) at 282

        Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
        http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

        • Are you fundraising to bring about lawsuits against the barbaric unconstitutional gun laws in California? Because if so, right on. Keep fighting the good fight. Glad to see someone in occupied territory is fighting these barbaric laws. Because if they’re not fought there, they will be fought elsewhere. Domino theory is real.

        • Can you please give me an explanation of your statement: “Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don’t carry a purse.”? I don’t get it … (because I conceal carry, and it doesn’t matter if I have my purse or not).

        • You need to work on your reading skills. I never said anything about what you posted on Heller’s F/B page. It’s his page not a democracy, If he doesn’t like anything posted by anyone he is free to block them and/or delete the post. He doesn’t owe you anything. He doesn’t have to agree with you at all. If you get invited to a Man’s house and you proceed to tell him His wife is ugly and his children smell bad he will undoubtedly throw your ass out.
          What I said was YOUR site is just one big DONATE button. Like I said, YOUR site has at least 7 buttons begging for donations, This was YOUR home page. When I clicked on the link to see the current status of the case This is the first line that you have at the top of that page.
          “Lawsuits cost money, mine is no exception. Please Donate.” The only thing you seem concerned about is yourself and your bank account. I made it perfectly clear that I was talking about YOUR website the first time. Maybe you should have your attorney read these for you so you don’t get confused.

        • “Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don’t carry a purse.”

          Who carries a purse? A woman, this is a backhanded attempt to classify anyone who opts to carry concealed as a b*tch. Apparently Charles thinks he is superior and more manly because he only wants open carry. Grow up already.

        • Why did you repost the whole silly thing? Should I assume that any answer to this question will also include another repost of every bit of this fluff, including the unproven statement that you don’t carry a purse?

    • I am sure the city will appeal this decision so neither I nor my wife will be packing when cross the river in the near future. However, I hope the appeal process concludes in my life time.

    • I CC on my body with various holsters of concealment to very deep concealment for my G19/23/38 choices. Why do you think you need a purse, Charles? How about you stick to the facts and avoid the passive aggressive bulls*it.

  2. I approve, too, Dick.

    Hopefully this give us even more momentum towards striking down more of these egregious and flatly illegal usurpation of our right to keep and bear arms.

    • Dick would not have to parade around with his Buntline special. That could be dangerous. He could however, put it on under a large shirt, go to a few iconic D.C. landmarks, and briefly display it for photographic proof to future generations that for at least a few hours, it was legal to openly carry weapons in the modern District of Columbia!

      I would love to see those photographs!

  3. “as well as buy, sell and obtain a concealed carry license.”
    Please re-word this, it makes it sound like you can sell and trade concealed carry licenses. I assume you meant firearms in general 😛

    • The whole thing could benefit from some proofreading. Like the word “deception” where I think he meant “decision.”

    • The Obama administration is going to impose Constitutional credits. In exchange for taking your rights away here, they promise to give other countries the rights we don’t need to offset the losses.

  4. We have to worry about the Socialists or Progressives taken over our Country, but the have to worry about the citizens rising up in armed revolt if they do. So I am all for us keeping our guns. We just need to make sure they don’t take our guns away.

  5. We have to worry about the Socialists or Progressives(Commies) trying to take over our Country. They have to worry about the Citizens reacting in an armed revolt if they do. As long as they don’t disarm the U.S. Citizens, we stand a chance to be free. They keep whittling away at our freedom with this law and that, but until they disarm us we have a chance. You can see what happens when the citizenry is disarmed. You don’t have to look any farther than Mexico.

    • AND, I understand (not an expert) that Mexico’s constitution guarantees the RKBA just like ours, but they are further down the path toward rendering guaranteed rights worthless unless you’re in a cartel or the government which takes their money.

  6. Oh come on silly children, we all know that the 2A is a collective right that grants members of the U.S. Armed Forces and the National Guard the right to bear arms and have just 5 rounds just prior to going into battle. The other rights are collective as well and do not apply to private citizens. See the government has the right to choose a religion for you. The government shall be secure in their documents from unreasonable search and seizures by the citizens.

    • Exactly. Those silly founding fathers simply wording things wrongly. Disregard the federalist papers too. Because I said so. The bill of rights was meant for those at the top of the federal government, not for individual citizens…

      God the latte limousine liberal loony left makes me want puke my fireball whiskey every time….

  7. Anytime a state or locality puts a licensing or permitting scheme in place it is an unconstitutional infringement. Permit= permission or privilege. Licence= TAX. Either one flies in the face of Rights. You don’t have to be granted a permit or pay a tax to exercise any other right protected by the constitution, what makes the 2nd any different?

    • I am with you all the way. I know you have heard of the Golden Rule, he who has the gold makes the rules. Take the ex-mayor of New York City, if he had to go through all the bull shit to get a concealed carry to just hire a body guard, he might have looked at it differently. But then he has the gold, so it might have been different for him to get a concealed weapons permit.

  8. Actually this ruling is good, but D.C. will whittle it down with so many little restrictions that it will be very difficult to get a carry permit, just as it is to get just an ownership and possession permit.

    • Many people keep saying that, but the ruling was extremely clear that limitations on the right are unconstitutional. If they attempt something like that I think this ruling will make it easy to shut them down again.

      • Illinois is a good example of what I am talking about. Yes, we may win after lengthy and costly battles, but they will just keep playing with us and come up with other delaying tactics. I would really like to see the system actually have some teeth in it that punishes those that pass laws that are against the rights enumerated in the Constitution.

    • Well they recently said their Georgia chapter has a bright future so their clearly out of touch with reality and simply… F*** it. They’re retarded.

        • Methinks you’d have the inside scoop on that.

          Some site admin can perhaps tell if this was posted from a mobile device in Denver….

    • Just took a look at their Facebook page. Not a word about it. From their point of view right now, it never happened.

  9. They tend to ignore this kind of news if at all possible. Can’t have the proles question their authority donchaknow?

    • May Issue might qualify as a reasonable restriction to the courts. As would a poll tax and literacy test license fee and safety course/test.

    • New Jersey’s may issue law was upheld by the Circuit Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court declined to grant review. Which means that you are stuck with the law until the Supreme Court accepts a carry case and overrules restrictions. There is only one case in the system right now that may do so–Peruta v. Gore, which is stuck in limbo in the Ninth Circuit as to whether the Attorney General will be allowed to intervene, and if so, whether en banc review will be granted.

      P.S.: Palmer does NOT say that D.C. CANNOT enact a “may issue” CCW law, and given past history, one can reasonably expect that the City Council will enact as strict a “may issue” law as it can.

      • I agree. This is a nice ruling, but it’ll either be overturned on appeal, or if not, D.C. will just implement something to skate by on legality, but still be exceedingly harsh in practicality. It’s frustrating how slow is the pace of civil rights reclamation. It’s made maddening all the more so when so much of the population is awash in indifference and even collaboration with the statists. Oh well, let’s take the victories where we can and celebrate them, and resume the fight again tomorrow. Evil never sleeps, so neither should we.

      • What effect would such an action have on the portion of this ruling mandating essentially constitutional carry for non-residents? Cuz, boy, if residents discovered that any visitor from out-of-state could freely do things which would land residents in prison, they might just wake up!

  10. This is just terrific news. Thank you Mr. Heller for your earlier work.

    Ladies and gents, his has really been a banner year for our rights!

  11. Not everyone is comfortable in the presence of guns. That is why concealed carry is polite carry. CCW is also the proven method for creating doubt in the minds of criminals and oppressors. Neither faction appreciates an armed citizen. Charles of california seems to desire that everyone be aware and in awe of
    the macho he is putting down. His predeliction of citing case law is not helpful. Case law has been used effectively to erode constitutinal intent. Please remember the Dred Scott decision was at one time “case law”.

    • “CCW is also the proven method for creating doubt in the minds of criminals and oppressors. “

      PROVEN where and how? Data sources please.

    • “Not everyone is comfortable in the presence of guns. That is why I dress business-casual and behave politely while openly carrying a handgun on my hip in a holster. Due to this, people see me as approachable and informative, not militant.”

      There, fixed it for you.

    • I can buy that, so long as we remember that “polite” is not something which can be legislated, “impolite” can not be punished by the state. If I am open carrying, feel free to look down your nose at me as uncultured, and you can even kiss my grits if you feel so strongly. What you can not do is pass a law requiring your personal definition of “polite” to be followed.

  12. Huge thanks for all of your hard work, Dick Heller. What can we do to help maintain this momentum? Where have contributions been a direct help to the cause? I see so many groups out there, but not all seem to be making efforts beyond social media. Again, we owe you a great level of gratitude.

  13. “……we noted that at least for the next few hours (or even days) Washington D.C. joins states like Arizona and Vermont in being “constitutional carry” jurisdictions. ”

    Well, not really. D.C. is a “Federal District”, provided for under the Constitution and created by Congress with the passing of the Residence Act on July 16, 1790. The act created what is known as a “Capital District” and as such is not a state, or a part of any state in the U.S. D.C. is therefore regulated by it’s own laws, which are Federal laws.

    Even though a locally elected Mayor and a city council have governed the district since 1973 Congress still maintains supreme authority over the city and can overturn any local laws….

    • Interesting, but how does that change Heller’s point?

      He’s just saying that for the moment, until they act again, the District has no constitutional (and thus enforceable?) laws regarding carry so it is in effect temporarily “Constitutional Carry.”

      • Mainly because the handguns would still have to be registered. The decision just served to invalidate Section 7-2502.02(a)(4) –

        “Registration of certain firearms prohibited”
        (a) A registration certificate shall not be issued for a:
        (4) Pistol not validly registered to the current registrant in the District prior to September 24, 1976…..

        – See more at: http://statutes.laws.com/district-of-columbia/division-i/title-7/subtitle-j/chapter-25/unit-a/subchapter-ii/section-7-2502-02#sthash.kf2UoYEn.dpuf

        And it also invalidated D.C. Code § 22-4504(a)

        “Carrying concealed weapons; possession of weapons during commission of crime of violence; penalty”

        (a) No person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so concealed. Whoever violates this section shall be punished as provided in § 22-4515………

        – See more at: http://statutes.laws.com/district-of-columbia/division-iv/title-22/subtitle-vi/chapter-45/section-22-4504#sthash.NF3cwXKz.dpuf

        As I read this, persons can carry, but the guns have to be registered. That registration part is the pesky one and is not “Constitutional Carry”.

        Those are not, however, the most important points.

        “Constitutional Carry” falls within the jurisdiction of the individual States. D.C. laws fall within the jurisdiction of Congress. The Congress gave the Mayor and council of D.C. the “permission” to encode laws, but only with the approval of such laws by Congress. On top of that, there are many other Federal Agencies with jurisdiction within D.C. – The Capitol Police to name just one.

        • And you have to be a D.C. resident to register your gun.

          But the court specifically said the ruling applied to non residents.

          Interesting.

  14. Big shout to Heller and the SAF on this. I’m sending in a little extra to SAF today and believe we all should do so.

  15. So when will the good people of DC get to have conceal carry permits. In the great State of Alabama we can get permits good for up to 5 years for $50.00. That is why everyone one sings Sweet Home Alabama.

  16. “This question is not difficult to answer.”

    Then why did it take four years and a writ of mandamus, twice submitted? Jag-off.

  17. I just dropped SAF another $50. It’s the least we can do folks. They funded this case, and it’s a big win for our friends in DC and for all Americans. I’m sure they could use to refill the coffers a little for the next round. When we are able to, we need to ‘put our money where out mouth is’ and support great orgs like SAF. We are many, many millions strong – and have the weight of logic, facts, history and the Constitution behind us. We don’t need to use propaganda, lies and deceit like the MDA fakes to win. But it sure does help to keep Ops like this well funded and actively working to protect our civil liberties. $50 aint a lot, but most I could do this week. I hope others do the same and they get a big boost from this.

  18. Sometimes we might forget that Heller, McDonald, Peruta, Moore etc. aren’t just case names. They are courageous people who went in harm’s way — not just for themselves, but for us, too.

    Bravo to all of them and to the much-despised lawyers who are breaking the backs of Second Amendment deniers.

      • hear hear Ralph. Spoken like a true senior statesman. we need to remember the sacrifices these named plaintiffs made for us, and frankly, they should never have to pay for drinks ever again.

  19. Since the court ordered that all enforcement of the ban CEASE, and without any apparent existing legal provisions for licensed carry… Has Washington DC become a defacto “Constitutional Carry” district? Effective immediately?

  20. Met Mr. Heller briefly a few years ago. Heck of a nice guy, and I am humbled by his actions to support the Constitution. Nice to see his by-line here.

Leave a Reply

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