We just won Palmer at the DC District Court!

[JimDandy]

I think we're all talking about at least three different things at once here.

What WE think it means

What it ACTUALLY means

What the Police Chief has told her officers that it means (for now anyway)

The first one is probably optimistic or pessimistic based on ones philosophical bent, the second one is almost impossible to know until things shake out a little more, especially as DC hasn't legislated a response yet, and the third is based on an PDF that's probably reliable right now, but may change at any given moment under the direction of the Attorney General and Police Chief.

[Spats McGee]

I still need to go back and read the decision itself, but judging from this (thank you diamondd817), it looks like I could legally carry a concealed firearm in DC today*. (From the pdf: "At this time, individuals who do not live in the District shall not be charged with either unregistered firearm or unregistered ammunition, but other charges may apply.")

*=Noting, however, that attempting to do so could still result in a great deal of time, energy and hassle in proving my innocence in the event that some MPDC members "didn't get the memo."

[Unlicensed Dremel]

This is positive, but I'm trying to understand exactly what the court is saying. If this is upheld, then DC: (a) MUST allow open carry, or (b) MUST create a concealed carry law scheme like Illinois had to do, or (c) both, or (d) neither - if neither than what exactly must they allow the people to do - carry on their own property only, but not beyond property lines?

You KNOW they're going to do ONLY that tiny amount which they must legally do, with no choice, and even then only kicking and screaming, so what, precisely, must they allow.

By the way, the court has not yet ruled on whether it will stay its ruling until the appeal occurs - it very well may NOT issue such a stay, since the court is fed up with the delay tactics of the city here. It may or may not stay the ruling.

[1-DAB]

so the only remaining court of appeal is the Supreme Court?

[JimDandy]

No from what I understand his was a District Court decision, from here it can go to the Circuit Court with jurisdiction, THEN to the Supremes. At least from what was said earlier.

[maestro pistolero]

Any non-prohibited person able to legally carry in his or her own state, or who has a registered handgun in DC will not be charged with simple possession. DC residents can still be charged with having an unregistered weapon.

Beware that the 10 round magazine ban and AWB remain intact, and that TPM restrictions against carrying in schools and government buildings, etc, are also untouched by this decision.

[Jim March]

Something else to ponder: DC has an absolute plethora of different TYPES of cops, plus private and semi-private security guards.

This memo has only gone out to actual DC Police. What about various types of parks police, the feds of various kinds...?

Upshot: I would be willing to CCW in DC right now but I think open carry (of a handgun) is asking for trouble, especially in the "tourist-type areas".

OH, speaking of tourists...I was at some of the big tourist hot-spots a few weeks ago, Jefferson and Lincoln memorials, etc. They are STUFFED with tourists from other countries...tons of Asian types that I saw (and with very obvious signs they were in big tour groups). Open carry around there could trigger a stampede and that could be...bad PR.

I think we need to cool our jets here - this is a HUGE cultural change going on.

But you know what? There's an enormous opportunity here too. If this lasts, say, a month, we'd be able to actually track violent crime rates before during and after that month. I don't we've EVER seen a heavily urban area with high violence rates go to "instant Vermont carry" (more or less).

We are in genuinely uncharted waters here folks, this is not a good time to "fly the freak flag".

[Tom Servo]

Something else to ponder: DC has an absolute plethora of different TYPES of cops, plus private and semi-private security guards.

Yep. DHS subcontracts security out to private firms, and I've seen the quality of training some of them get. It's truly frightening.

Now, consider that one can't throw a rock in DC without it landing on some sort of federal property, and things get risky.

[KyJim]

Okay, but the actual federal police, like the park service, can't enforce the D.C. Code can they? I would think they can only enforce laws enacted by Congress; or, maybe there is a federal law that says they can arrest for D.C. Code violations.

At any rate, I would not want to be the person testing the application of the injunction.

[Jim March]

OK. So what happens if we take that two-page bulletin from the chief, make a ton of copies and staple 'em to telephone poles all over DC, esp. the "hood-rat" sections?

The goal here is to show the types that do the violent crime that it isn't safe to do so, to cause a dramatic dip in the crime rate? We WANT that dip to be as deep as possible, ASAP.

[KyJim]

So what happens if we take that two-page bulletin from the chief, make a ton of copies and staple 'em to telephone poles all over DC, esp. the "hood-rat" sections?

I'm sure the posters would be arrested. Most municipalities have ordinances against tacking up signs on telephone poles and the like. This is the sort of thing the chief meant when he said other laws would still be applicable.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

We need to stop expecting these people to capitulate, play by the rules or admit defeat. I don't even think they care about losing in court. It doesn't really change anything, it's just part of their tactic to either win, which they'd love, or delay right to carry essentially indefinitely. They really CAN'T "lose". They can only have one law struck down. Since they have an infinite variety of new laws available for the writing, they just write a new one.

Sadly, I think Brian is correct. We have only to look at Chicago and Philadelphia for examples. Chicago you're all probably aware of, due to the shenanigans they pulled post-McDonald. In Philadelphia, both open and concealed carry are legal under PA state law,. The Philadelphia police department, nonetheless, routinely stops, detains, harasses, and often arrests open carriers ... even if they have a license. The city has been taken to court over this multiple times, has lost every time, and routinely pays out $25,000 or so to each victim of their official harassment.

But they don't stop. After all, it isn't their money -- it's the taxpayers' money. But in DC? There, it's ALL our money.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Dakota.Potts

My reading of it was that DC residents must register their handguns and that any one from another state need only have a carry permit.

Which makes me wonder about people from Arizona, Alaska, Vermont etc. where no permit is needed to carry a firearm.

Arizona and Alaska issue permits, for those who need them outside of the state. Vermont is now the only state with no provision whatsoever for carry permits.

The language of the decision doesn't say non-residents must have a permit. It says that DC is enjoined from enforcing the carry law and the registration law against non-residents. On the face of it, I think Vermonters are good to go based on their own recognizance. (But ... if I lived in Vermont I would not volunteer to be the test case.)

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Now, consider that one can't throw a rock in DC without it landing on some sort of federal property, and things get risky.

True, but the federal law prohibits carrying firearms in federal facilities -- and the same law defines "facility" as a building where federal employees normally work (paraphrased). So you can't legally walk into the Capital Building, but you can legally walk right up to the top step outside the entrance.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Jim March

OK. So what happens if we take that two-page bulletin from the chief, make a ton of copies and staple 'em to telephone poles all over DC, esp. the "hood-rat" sections?

"Other charges may apply."

You'll probably be arrested and charged with littering, defacement of public property, interfering with a public utility, obstruction of traffic, creating a public nuisance, and disturbing the peace.

Originally Posted by KyJim

This is the sort of thing the chief meant when he said other laws would still be applicable.

Umm, err, ahh -- Jim, "he" is a "she." The chief of police in DC is a woman, Kathy Lanier.

[Dan F]

I think the deafening silence from the normally exuberantly (and irritatingly) over-garrulous Mom's, MSM and others on this is fascinating... since when have they ever been savvy enough to avoid the Streisand Effect?

Just wondering...

[NJgunowner]

They know this is just the beginning, when it gets to the higher courts they'll get more vocal.

[divil]

We need to stop expecting these people to capitulate, play by the rules or admit defeat. I don't even think they care about losing in court. It doesn't really change anything, it's just part of their tactic to either win, which they'd love, or delay right to carry essentially indefinitely. They really CAN'T "lose". They can only have one law struck down. Since they have an infinite variety of new laws available for the writing, they just write a new one.

Sadly I agree.

Apologies if this is a stupid question...my understanding of the law might be way off here, but if they enact a law to regulate carrying, wouldn't that mean they would lose their "standing" to appeal the ruling? So they have a big decision to make - if they appeal they could have to allow carrying for a long time with no regulation whatsoever, only to probably loose in the end anyway. Therefore they will "accept" the ruling and enact as restrictive a law as possible - just enough to prevent anyone from suing on the basis of a "total prohibition". That way, the new law will be protected at least as long as it takes to bring a whole new case, which will be years.

[KyJim]

Therefore they will "accept" the ruling and enact as restrictive a law as possible - just enough to prevent anyone from suing on the basis of a "total prohibition". That way, the new law will be protected at least as long as it takes to bring a whole new case, which will be years.

That seems to be the general consensus of the posters here.

[Jim March]

90-day stay issues this morning: NO LEGAL CARRY for now.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...arry-decision/

DC is still trying to figure out whether to appeal or just craft a CCW law of some sort.

[Tom Servo]

Though I can't find the text of the order, the Washington Times quoted this:

an immediate 90-day stay is appropriate to provide the city council with an opportunity to enact appropriate legislation consistent with the Court‘s.

For a sweeping ruling like Palmer, that makes sense.

[HarrySchell]

For a sweeping ruling like Palmer, that makes sense.

Distasteful, but I have to agree.

I don't trust the rank and file LEO's to change their reflexes overnight, whatever the chief tells them to do.

Being right and being shot-up due to a panicked LEO is not a good outcome for me.

[1-DAB]

reporting by "[h/t Dirk Diggler, Esq.]"

bwhahaha....

[Brian Pfleuger]

They don't really need much time.

Likely one at a time or in smallest possible increments so as not to lose all at once, I predict...

They will pass a "May Issue" permit scheme, a la New York State. They will include fancy buzz words like "denials may not be arbitrary and/or capricious".

Instead of county judges like in NY, they'll either create a new position, "Handgun Permitting Officer" or something, or else simply assign it to the Chief of Police.

They will allocate a few thousand dollars a year for funding. It will take them about 1 day less than what would get them sued to set up the system. There won't be enough funding to do much of anything once it is set up.

Just like in NY, there will be a legal time limit (it's 6 months here) for permit processing but, just like in NY, that time limit will be arbitrarily ignored with impunity. Permit processing might take 18 months.

Just like in NY, permit denials will be arbitrary and capricious. Some of the county offices here will tell you point blank, right to your face, that they DO NOT issue concealed carry (unrestricted) permits. It's been that way for decades.

The system will include some variation of the "good cause" requirement, as NY's still does. It doesn't matter if it has been or will be struck down, it's another 2-5 years before that happens and many folks who see it on the application in the meantime will simply not apply.

They will include training/qualification requirements (a la Chicago) that are onerous and will regulate the start-up companies that try to to meet those requirements to the point that they are nearly impossible to get going. The ones that do get going will be political insiders who will try to make a fortune charging outrageous fees for the classes but scheduling as few as possible.

As they already do, they will not allow or they will place onerous requirements on FFLs in their jurisdiction, making opening a gun store nearly (as it is now) impossible.

That's just a start, but that's probably enough to get them out another 15-20 years.

[steve4102]

Judge Scullin wrote that the court “enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of [D.C. firearms laws] unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

Who or what will determine if the "New" licensing mechanism meets these requirements?

Does Scullin have a say in this?