SAF & Gura Sue DC for Carry Rights

[Yellowfin]

http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=300

SAF SUES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OVER CARRYING OF HANDGUNS
For Immediate Release: 8/6/2009

NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release: Contact: Alan Gottlieb (425) 454-7012

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit on behalf of three residents of the District of Columbia and a New Hampshire resident, seeking to compel the city to issue carry permits to law-abiding citizens.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court on behalf of Tom Palmer, George Lyon and Amy McVey, all District residents, and Edward Raymond, a New Hampshire resident. SAF and the individual plaintiffs are being represented by attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case in 2008 that overturned the District’s handgun ban on the grounds that it was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

“Once again,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “we’re heading back to court because the anti-gun city administration refuses to abide by the law. It is beginning to appear like residents of the District are up against a rogue city government that simply does not want to ease its stranglehold on the most important civil right of all, the right of self-preservation.”

“In most major American cities,” said attorney Gura, “where the right to bear arms is respected, licensed permit holders have proven themselves safe and effective. Washington, D.C. already requires handgun registrants to complete the background checks and training classes required of carry permit holders throughout the country. It is pointless to deny these individuals the right to bear arms.”

SAF previously sued the District over its restrictive handgun registration policies, leading the city to amend those policies. This time, SAF is alleging that the District previously had a city code under which the police chief could issue licenses to carry handguns to individuals, including citizens not residing in the District, though the city did not issue such licenses as a matter of policy for several years. That authority was revoked last December by the Mayor and City Council.

Plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against the continued ban on carrying handguns by law-abiding citizens for personal protection.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08...y5222857.shtml

One question left unanswered by the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Second Amendment ruling last year is this: When do law-abiding Americans have the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense?

In a lawsuit filed against the city of Washington, D.C. on Thursday, the Second Amendment Foundation aims to find out.

The plaintiffs are four gun owners who were denied licenses to carry firearms in public on their person, which nearly all states permit. All U.S. states except Illinois and Wisconsin grant licenses for concealed carry, and 36 states require local police to issue the licenses unless there's a valid reason (such as a criminal history) not to do so.

The District of Columbia is a special case. Its city code says nobody may carry "either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license." But a law enacted in December 2008 appears to have curbed the ability of the police chief to grant those licenses.

"This really isn't about concealed carry," Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, told CBSNews.com in an interview on Thursday evening. "It's about being able to carry a gun, period. D.C. can prescribe some form or fashion or regulation or restrictions, but there's no way they can say you can't do it at all."

Part of the blame for this uncertainty -- how far does the Second Amendment extend? -- can be laid at the doors of no less an authority than the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the D.C. v. Heller case, the justices struck down the District's no-handguns-in-your-own-home ban on the grounds that it violated the Second Amendment, but they weren't terribly specific about what else might or might not cross the line.

Put another way, the text of the Second Amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Last year's Heller case dealt with the right to keep arms, but what about the right to bear arms?

The justices' majority opinion acknowledged that "at the time of the founding, as now, to 'bear' meant to 'carry,'" and that the phrase "'bear arms' was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia." Also: "We find that (the clauses) guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.""

Just to make things more complicated, though, the majority opinion also says: "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Permitting law-abiding Americans to carry loaded firearms on their person doesn't fall squarely into one of those categories, which has given gun rights groups some reason to be optimistic in the current lawsuit against Washington, D.C.

"We're not against all gun laws or forms of gun control here," Gottlieb said. "We're not saying that you can bring your gun to the Capitol building or the White House. But there are obviously places where you should be able to carry a gun for self-defense."

This is one case that's more likely than most to end up at the Supreme Court once again. Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed as an associate justice on Thursday, but few court watchers expect that to make a difference: as I wrote in May, both she and David Souter (her predecessor) appear to believe the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Thursday's complaint filed against the District invokes two constitutional rights: First, it says that general bans on "carrying of handguns in public violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution"; and second, that the city's repeated refusals to grant permits "violate the rights to travel and equal protection secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

The only problem with that approach is that even though the Supreme Court said that a constitutional right to keep and bear arms exists, subsequent rulings by appellate courts have routinely said it's so limited that it doesn't have much meaning in practice. (One of those cases involved Sotomayor, and another involved a California anti-gun law.) If anti-gun types can convince judges to continue this approach, they may be able to win the next few rounds even though the Heller decision is technically the law of the land.

Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBSNews.com. He can be reached at declan@cbsnews.com.

It's time to apply some REAL meaning back to the 2nd Amendment. I know it's going to take time but I'm so energized by this it's almost impossible to say.

[AirForceShooter]

I'm waiting to see where the NRA-ILA goes on this.

AFS

[gc70]

Here is the complaint in Palmer v. DC.

Heller was tightly focused on "keep arms" and Palmer is tightly focused on "bear arms."

[Yellowfin]

There's a section entitled "Prayer for Relief". Is that what it's commonly called? Have judges' egos gotten so inflated these days to the point that they must be prayed to?

[maestro pistolero]

There's a section entitled "Prayer for Relief". Is that what it's commonly called?

Yes, I have seen that in a number of briefs. After all the arguments are made, it is the essence of what the court is being ask to do as a remedy to the complaint. IANAL, so someone set me straight if I am misunderstanding the term.

[Al Norris]

That's exactly what you do. Set out in detail what is wrong and then suggest what will make it right.

Don't have to be an attorney to realize the format you should be following.

[csmsss]

I'm curious what standing a NH resident would have in a case against DC.

[orionengnr]

I think I'm going to have to join the SAF.
I'm already an NRA and TSRA member, so my ammo budget is going downhill fast.
Oh well, can't find any ammo anyway...

God Bless Alan Gura.

[Yellowfin]

I too will be joining SAF as the NRA/NYSRPA isn't doing any of this stuff in NYS and can't get anyone stirred up to think on offense.