SAF, Gura sue DC for licenses to Carry

[hoffmang]

Today, Alan Gura filed a case on behalf of Tom Palmer, George Lyon and Amy McVey, all District residents, and Edward Raymond, a New Hampshire resident, and SAF challening D.C.'s ban on carrying a firearm for self defense.


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 That authority was revoked last December by the Mayor and City Council.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.

-END-

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations 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 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=300

Thanks to PRKArms for assisting plaintiffs in this case in acquiring Rostered firearms to use to apply for a license to carry.

-Gene

[hoffmang]

The complaint is available here (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/palmer/Palmer-v-DC-Complaint-redacted-2009-08-06.pdf).

-Gene

[Hans Gruber]

The heat is on!

[7x57]

T
Thanks to PRKArms for assisting plaintiffs in this case in acquiring Rostered firearms to use to apply for a license to carry.


It's almost like there's a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy to gang up on these poor anti-gun cities. Have you no conscience? :43:

7x57

[KCM222]

It's nice to see the attack being waged on multiple fronts.

[Musclemom]

These are exciting times! :thumbsup:

[hawk1]

DC needs more sand kicked at them. Keep up the good work.

[Swatter911]

Do you think they'll cut and paste California law again????? :rolleyes:

[KCM222]

Do you think they'll cut and paste California law again????? :rolleyes:

Let's hope so.

[tombinghamthegreat]

This looks promising and will be interesting when more of the media outlets starts reporting on this.

[putput]

There's some independants and libs in there too. Bwahaha!

It's almost like there's a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy to gang up on these poor anti-gun cities. Have you no conscience? :43:

7x57

[Legasat]

They sound like Right Wing Extremists to me ;)

[gbran]

The 2A didn't restrict firearms to home possession only and our forefathers didn't expect us to unload and lock our guns in our saddle bags or strong boxes when leaving home. This is the next issue that needs to be addressed after incorporation. Glad to see SAF going after it in DC now. I'm glad to send money to them.

[xxdabroxx]

What was the outcome of their roster? Did they scrap it or is it an ongoing case?

[nooner]

An attack from both fronts. Gotta love it. Donations will be inbound next paycheck. Thanks for all that you guys do.

[Gray Peterson]

What was the outcome of their roster? Did they scrap it or is it an ongoing case?

Did not scrap it, but they made it to where every pistol that the plaintiffs had is registerable now, and they exempted all pistols made pre-1985.

[xxdabroxx]

Did not scrap it, but they made it to where every pistol that the plaintiffs had is registerable now, and they exempted all pistols made pre-1985.

Thanks

[dantodd]

It's almost like there's a Vast Rights-Wing Conspiracy to gang up on these poor anti-gun cities. Have you no conscience? :43:

7x57

FYP!

[hoffmang]

Did not scrap it, but they made it to where every pistol that the plaintiffs had is registerable now, and they exempted all pistols made pre-1985.

DC modified their roster to be so permissive that we couldn't find a handgun that wasn't on it now. Heck, you can even buy and register a Taurus Judge in DC - which you can't do in CA (for non Roster reasons).

-Gene

[Maestro Pistolero]

It's like dominoes, in slow motion.

[swhatb]

WOW :chris:

Today, Alan Gura filed a case on behalf of Tom Palmer, George Lyon and Amy McVey, all District residents, and Edward Raymond, a New Hampshire resident, and SAF challening D.C.'s ban on carrying a firearm for self defense.


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

Thanks to PRKArms for assisting plaintiffs in this case in acquiring Rostered firearms to use to apply for a license to carry.

-Gene

[7x57]

There's some independants and libs in there too. Bwahaha!

I was quoting Hillary, and she didn't seem interested in fine distinctions. :rolleyes:

Of course, it's clearer now why--if you disagree with anything, you're a dissident. It's not important to find out precisely what species of dissidents there are, you just line up the whole genus and shoot them.

7x57

[7x57]

DC modified their roster to be so permissive that we couldn't find a handgun that wasn't on it now.

Seriously? I figured there must be a few.

7x57

[7x57]

The complaint is available here (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/palmer/Palmer-v-DC-Complaint-redacted-2009-08-06.pdf).


Heh. If DC isn't allowed to deny a permit because of residence before Incorporation..... :43:

7x57

[vrand]

It's nice to see the attack being waged on multiple fronts.

:thumbsup:

[7x57]

FYP!

"Rights-wing." Nice. Needs to be on a t-shirt. :)

7x57

[hoffmang]

Seriously? I figured there must be a few.


We looked pretty hard. I'm sure there is something but it's probably rare. Maryland's roster is very permissive and exempts everything before 1985. Further, if there isn't something on the DC roster, Maryland lets anyone apply to have something added to their Roster. So far the only gun turned down in MD appears to be one that the exemplar literally didn't work. And it wasn't turned down - it was held and the manufacturer was asked to send a replacement.

-Gene

[htjyang]

We looked pretty hard. I'm sure there is something but it's probably rare. Maryland's roster is very permissive and exempts everything before 1985. Further, if there isn't something on the DC roster, Maryland lets anyone apply to have something added to their Roster. So far the only gun turned down in MD appears to be one that the exemplar literally didn't work. And it wasn't turned down - it was held and the manufacturer was asked to send a replacement.

-Gene

Perhaps in time, DC will become the NRA's model jurisdiction?

[383green]

We looked pretty hard. I'm sure there is something but it's probably rare. Maryland's roster is very permissive and exempts everything before 1985. Further, if there isn't something on the DC roster, Maryland lets anyone apply to have something added to their Roster. So far the only gun turned down in MD appears to be one that the exemplar literally didn't work. And it wasn't turned down - it was held and the manufacturer was asked to send a replacement.


Setting aside for a moment the offensiveness of having a "safety" roster at all, doesn't it seem like a pointless waste of time and money to maintain a roster that is so permissive that anything short of a gun carved from a bar of soap will be approved? To me it sounds comparable to setting up a bureaucracy to administer a test which you can only fail by forgetting to write your name at the top of the page. If we were talking about computer programs instead of laws, the compiler would recognize this as a do-nothing subroutine and discard it.

[Paladin]

We looked pretty hard. I'm sure there is something but it's probably rare. Maryland's roster is very permissive and exempts everything before 1985.
Even those old, what were they, Indian Arms/Raven zinc alloy .25s?

Even "Saturday Night Specials"?

If so, wow, have things changed.

How's D.C. re. long arms?

[hoffmang]

Even those old, what were they, Indian Arms/Raven zinc alloy .25s?
Pre-1985's are in.


Even "Saturday Night Specials"?
Most of the "SNS" guns made it onto the CA Roster in fact.

How's D.C. re. long arms?
Exactly like California with the exception of the Harrot decision.

-Gene

[HondaMasterTech]

CA wants a roster to make money.

[leelaw]

DC modified their roster to be so permissive that we couldn't find a handgun that wasn't on it now. Heck, you can even buy and register a Taurus Judge in DC - which you can't do in CA (for non Roster reasons).

-Gene

What about an AR-15 pistol?

If they need something with a magazine in the pistol grip, then:

UZI clone?

MAC clone?

Have fun with it...

[leelaw]

CA wants a roster to make money.

If the point was making money, then the restrictions would be lessened (or DOJ would petition Congress to write new legislation that would remove the new characteristic requirements) so more would be added to the roster. Get rid of the magazine disconnect and CLI and suddenly everyone wants their guns on the roster again.

It's not about making money, it's about restricting guns in California.

[383green]

It's not about making money, it's about restricting guns in California.

Agreed, but I'm sure they don't mind making a few bucks in the process. :mad:

[HondaMasterTech]

If the point was making money, then the restrictions would be lessened (or DOJ would petition Congress to write new legislation that would remove the new characteristic requirements) so more would be added to the roster. Get rid of the magazine disconnect and CLI and suddenly everyone wants their guns on the roster again.

It's not about making money, it's about restricting guns in California.

There are a LOT of guns on the roster which makes the state a TON of money. Though I dont argue that restriction is on "their" minds.

[copenhagen269]

The heat is on!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uYIUhi-Ybi4&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uYIUhi-Ybi4&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Sorry, I had to do it.

[Dr Rockso]

DC modified their roster to be so permissive that we couldn't find a handgun that wasn't on it now.
Which begs the question: what's the point of the roster if every handgun is rostered?

And seriously every handgun? PLR-16, AR-15 pistol, AK pistol, Uzi, Mac, Tec....everything?

[7x57]

Which begs the question: what's the point of the roster if every handgun is rostered?


Reinforces the Right to Regulate. Keeps Control. What else is it ever?


And seriously every handgun? PLR-16, AR-15 pistol, AK pistol, Uzi, Mac, Tec....everything?

It's quite possible we don't want to bring AR and AK pistols and sub-semi-machineguns into court yet. If the judge wets his pants when you bring in exhibit A, you're in trouble.

7x57

[Foulball]

If the judge wets his pants when you bring in exhibit A, you're in trouble.

7x57

Hahaha, I find that VERY sig worthy! Thanks 7x57!!!:43:

[Dr Rockso]

It's quite possible we don't want to bring AR and AK pistols and sub-semi-machineguns into court yet. If the judge wets his pants when you bring in exhibit A, you're in trouble.
Yeah, I understand that. I was just curious if they are actually DC-legal with the modified roster.

[7x57]

Yeah, I understand that. I was just curious if they are actually DC-legal with the modified roster.

Oh, it's a great question, and nothing would give me more pleasure than for the DC council to have to accept big-bad-scary-assault-baby-killers on their streets. I'd like to know the answer about such pistols myself. I only meant that Gene might possibly not be counting them because it isn't the right time to push on Evil Black non-Rifles yet.

7x57

[yellowfin]

Any projections on timeline for this? We have a lot of ducks to get in a row in some various states that will march on this news. Or do you think DC will fold again to keep this from becoming precedent? They've gotta be choking on themselves right now.

[Aegis]

I hope Mr. Gura makes millions in fees and costs from the city on this case and others. The only way these arrogant politicians are going to follow the law is if they keep paying millions of dollars each time they get taken to court when they trample on someones constitutional rights.

[Psy Crow]

I hope Mr. Gura makes millions in fees and costs from the city on this case and others.

I too hope Mr. Gura is well paid for his services.


The only way these arrogant politicians are going to follow the law is if they keep paying have to pay millions of dollars of their own money each time they get taken to court or are thrown out of office when they trample on someones constitutional rights.

FTF.

[69Mach1]

D.C. must love the "beat down" or something. Go get em.

[press1280]

If I'm not mistaken, DC's current permit statute allows for open or concealed carry.
If the case moves fast enough.........could the Second Amendment march next year in DC become........dare I say..........AN OPEN CARRY MARCH?:43:

[trinydex]

DC modified their roster to be so permissive that we couldn't find a handgun that wasn't on it now. Heck, you can even buy and register a Taurus Judge in DC - which you can't do in CA (for non Roster reasons).

-Gene

with the continued existence of a roster, does that still mean an effective ban on new handguns?

[trinydex]

And seriously every handgun? PLR-16, AR-15 pistol, AK pistol, Uzi, Mac, Tec....everything?

isn't there a distinction between handgun and pistol?

[bdsmchs]

isn't there a distinction between handgun and pistol?

No.

[dantodd]

IWB for AR CCW? Or would it be OC only?

[nicki]

OMFG, you guys certainly are moving, I now have alot of CROW to eat, tastes like ****, but I'm happy to eat every yucky bit,

The NRA is the 800 pound Gorilla defending gun rights, but CALGUNS/SAF is KING KONG getting them back.:43:

Nicki

[trautert]

Keep in mind that any fees, reparations, etc. will just be paid from the tax dollars collected from the same people who have been barred from protecting themselves for decades.

It won't come from the pols' pockets.

Tom

[Paladin]

If and when law-abiding D.C. residents can carry, about, oh, 3 years later, I'd expect D.C. to actually become a decent place to live. Property values might increase. Time for some pro-gun folk to start buying up depressed real estate now and make a fortune in the next few years.

But be sure to contribute a portion to SAF, CGF, and the NRA-ILA/PVF (we're still in a political fight and that determines who becomes fed and state judges/justices).

[dantodd]

Keep in mind that any fees, reparations, etc. will just be paid from the tax dollars collected from the same people who have been barred from protecting themselves re-electing these "rights robbers" for decades.

FYP.

[ChrisSig]

What chance does this lawsuit have? Doesn't this hinge on whether the 2nd amendment truly protects the right to "bear"- uncharted territory?

[Fjold]

What chance does this lawsuit have? Doesn't this hinge on whether the 2nd amendment truly protects the right to "bear"- uncharted territory?


The second amendment protects the right to "bear arms" in Washington DC. That's what Heller did.

[press1280]

Note in Heller that Scalia mentioned that few laws came close to DC's gun ban, and many of those laws were struck down.
The cases mentioned were all open carry bans, while stating the CC bans were upheld. He also said the meaning of "bear" was to carry weapons in case of a confrontation(that was actually Justice Ginsburg's definition)
So, unless DC wants to decriminalize open carry, their best bet is to comply.

DC has until late this month to answer the complaint.

[nicki]

Keep in mind that any fees, reparations, etc. will just be paid from the tax dollars collected from the same people who have been barred from protecting themselves for decades.

It won't come from the pols' pockets.

Tom
Reply With Quote

Yes, this will come out of the pockets of taxpayers, however, with the increase of Justifiable homicides and/or reduction in crime, Washington DC will become a better place to live, real economic development can happen, so the tax base will expand.

This should more than offset costs to the taxpayers. Even if that doesn't happen, the peace of mind knowing that you are not dependent on 911, that you have self defense options is priceless.

Lots of lawsuits will be filed, and taxpayers are going to pay, They are going to pay because of their negligence in electing bad politicians in the first place.

It is our own fault that we don't have 10 year sunset on all laws so that we don't have to fight against laws that were passed alomost 100years ago.

Nicki

[hvengel]

Yes, this will come out of the pockets of taxpayers, however, with the increase of Justifiable homicides and/or reduction in crime, Washington DC will become a better place to live, real economic development can happen, so the tax base will expand.

This should more than offset costs to the taxpayers....

Nicki

The tax payers in this case are everyone who pays any form of federal taxes. DC is funded by the federal treasury not by local taxes.

[KylaGWolf]

Kudos to Gara.

[Maestro Pistolero]

Kudos to GaraGura.

That's better!;)