View Full Version : Washington D.C. - Lawsuit for concealed carry by Alan Gura (Heller & McDonald Lawyer)
Alan Gura is making quite a name for himself in the defense of the 2nd Amendment. After having success in DC VS Heller he is now embroiled in the McDonald VS Chicago gun case. So what better way to make a bigger splash than to try to get Washington DC to grant "permission" for it's law abiding citizens to protect themselves? He is now pursuing a lawsuit against DC to incorporate concealed carry within the District and I wish him nothing but the best of luck. The Alan Gura, CATO and SAF team are the absolute best thing that's happened for the 2nd Amendment and our right to keep and bear arms in a long time.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080702997.html First article I could find on 8/8/09.
The lawyer who won the battle to allow District residents to keep handguns in their homes is now fighting to allow residents and visitors to carry their weapons in public.
Alan Gura filed a lawsuit Thursday in U.S. District Court on behalf of four people who want the right to carry and conceal weapons for self-defense.
Gura filed the suit on behalf of three D.C. residents: Tom G. Palmer, George Lyon and Amy McVey. D.C. police rejected the gun registration applications of all three when they informed police that they intended to carry their loaded guns outside of their homes. Palmer and Lyon were also plaintiffs in the 2003 lawsuit.
The lawsuit seeks to afford the right to carry a gun to non-District residents who have gun permits issued elsewhere. The fourth person in the complaint, Edward Raymond, a law school student who lives in New Hampshire, was arrested in the District in 2007 for carrying a loaded handgun in his car when he was stopped for speeding. Raymond had a permit to carry the gun in Maryland and Florida. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor unregistered gun.
"We're still fighting for the rights to bear arms," Gura said. "Right now, we're in a situation where people who want to carry a handgun can do it just about anywhere else in the country, but not in the nation's capital."
Gura's lawsuit says that the District's "laws, customs, practices and policies generally banning the carrying of handguns in public violate the Second Amendment" of the U.S. Constitution.
In an interview, Gura disputed concerns from anti-gun groups who worry that arming residents could increase violent crime in the District. "These are law-abiding citizens who do not commit crimes," Gura said of registered handgun owners. "This will not turn into the O.K. Corral."
Also named as a plaintiff in the suit is the Second Amendment Foundation, a nonprofit gun-advocacy organization based in Bellevue, Wash.
Defense attorneys have long argued in D.C. Superior Court cases that many non-District residents who have gun permits from other jurisdictions aren't aware that they cannot bring guns into the District and often are arrested for minor violations and then jailed when officers discover a concealed weapon.
D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles said he was confident that Gura would not win the suit.
"The last place you want to conceal is in the District, with all of these federal buildings," Nickles said. "It makes the job of law enforcement damned difficult."
In Gura's previous suit, the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the city's ban was unconstitutional and that residents should be allowed to keep guns in their homes for personal protection.
In that ruling, conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Nickles cited Scalia's ruling.
"This is a frontal assault on the District's regulations under the Second Amendment. I don't think that's what Justice Scalia had in mind when he talked about self-defense."
The District has until Aug. 26 to respond to the lawsuit.
Today - http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Man-Sues-DC-for-Right-to-Carry-Firearms-84915182.html
One of the men who sued the District for the right to keep handguns at home is taking D.C. back to court.
This time, Tom Palmer wants the right to carry firearms in public.
According to the Washington Post, Palmer says the Second Amendment is on his side. He claims the right to bear arms means the right to carry them with you.
The case is pending in U.S. District Court.
Palmer claims he wants to carry a gun for safety.
Opponents said there's nothing safe about letting people walk the streets of Washington with loaded guns.
Alan Gura is making quite a name for himself in the defense of the 2nd Amendment. After having success in DC VS Heller he is now embroiled in the McDonald VS Chicago gun case. So what better way to make a bigger splash than to try to get Washington DC to grant "permission" for it's law abiding citizens to protect themselves? He is now pursuing a lawsuit against DC to incorporate concealed carry within the District and I wish him nothing but the best of luck. The Alan Gura, CATO and SAF team are the absolute best thing that's happened for the 2nd Amendment and our right to keep and bear arms in a long time.
I am glad of it
I am glad of it
This team is doing more for the 2nd Amendment, gun rights and the freedom to bear arms than anyone in our country's history in the past 100 years.
I wish Alan good luck, he and his marry band of Libertarians at Cato have done more for the 2A cause in the last few years than most organizations have done in the last few decades.
GermanSynergy
02-22-10, 13:30
Outstanding!:cool:
In case anyone hasn't seen it here's the McDonald VS Chicago thread that I keep updated. The same attorney, Alan Gura, is also representing Mr. McDonald in this case. https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=39619
I hate to say it, but he's got a much tougher battle on his hands in trying to force concealed carry on any locality or state. There's a lot of precedent out there, even from "pro-gun" courts, supporting the notion that laws restricting concealment of weapons are constitutional.
Without having read any of the details, I'd guess that he's attacking the more general principle of being able to carry a firearms outside the home - the "bear" part of keep and bear arms - rather than concealed carry in particular. He could do that in a number of ways, including the constitutional route or the more boring route of the DC government denying the permit requests in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner for these particular plaintiffs. Or both.
I hate to say it, but he's got a much tougher battle on his hands in trying to force concealed carry on any locality or state. There's a lot of precedent out there, even from "pro-gun" courts, supporting the notion that laws restricting concealment of weapons are constitutional.
Yup... dating back to the time the BoR was ratified. I agree, it's a very tough sell.
On the other hand, when the BoR was ratified it wasn't intended to apply to state and local governments. Now we're on the cusp of a SCOTUS decision that could change all of that. And if 2A will in fact limit state & local governments, then a pricklier question has to be answered:
Would the Second Amendment have allowed the Federal government to ban the concealed carry of firearms in public?
It's a prickly question because it asks if the scope of the 2A allows for a prohibition against something it was never (originally) intended to encompass in the first place.
Also, the nature of interstate travel today is such that there is a very real argument to be made that traveling citizens cannot be expected to know every detail of every law for every state one may travel through in the process of getting from State A to State B. For example, Virginia posts signs on major highways entering the state warning drivers that radar detectors are illegal there... without that, there is a question of fundamental fairness expecting every single resident in the country to be aware of that unusual law.
I agree that the fight to get this through will be difficult and probably quite problematic. However, just because the odds aren't in your favor doesn't mean you shouldn't give it your all. Best of luck to Alan and the rest of his team.
UPDATE: http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/22/guns-not-just-for-the-home-any
The Washington Post has an interesting profile of longtime libertarian activist and fighter for gun possession rights, Tom Palmer. Palmer was one of the original plaintiffs in the Heller case, which vindicated the Second Amendment by overturning D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership. (Palmer was booted from the case for technical standing reasons before it reached the Supreme Court.)
Palmer is now one of the plaintiffs in a new legal challenge to still-existing D.C. laws that prohibit the public carrying ("bearing," as in "the right to keep and bear arms") of your gun in D.C.
The Post story features Palmer's dramatic retelling of the incident that convinced him in his bones, not just from his philosophical predilections, that bearing arms in public can save lives, since his bearing arms saved his from some gay-bashing thugs. (That story is also told in my book on the Heller case, Gun Control on Trial.)
The story also nicely sums up the public policy reasons--as opposed to constitutional reasons--why some people in D.C. are scared to death of a victory for Palmer and his fellow plaintiffs:
Peter Nickles, the District's attorney general, [thinks] allowing handguns to be kept in homes in one of the most dangerous cities in the country was bad enough. Permitting people to pack heat while they walk around -- amid presidential motorcades, foreign dignitaries, public protests -- is downright crazy, he says. And it makes already difficult police work even harder.
"This is a unique jurisdiction, and it requires a unique sensitivity to balance safety and the Second Amendment right to, quote, bear arms," he says. "That's because it's the nation's capital. . . . So the idea that an individual should be able to carry arms on the street -- indeed, concealed on the street -- is very scary."
Jonathan E. Lowy, a lawyer with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, says he thinks the case, pending in U.S. District Court, is open and shut.
"To force the general public to be exposed to the risk of loaded guns when they are out with their family in public areas is outrageous and has absolutely nothing to do with the right to defend the home," he says.
As Tim Lynch, who like Palmer works at the Cato Institute, explains, "Most criminal attacks occur outside the home (around 87%) and the criminals are armed and always have the advantage of choosing when they’ll strike — and that’s usually when there are no cops around."
Thus, if the right to defend yourself against assault should be honored by the U.S. government, there is little reasonable justification for restricting that right to only the home. And there is no civilized right more basic than self-defense; indeed, to make such defense more efficient and wide-ranging is one of the only legitimate reasons for government at all, thus making localities' attempts to bar its citizens from practicing the right effectively particularly pernicious.
Wiki's useful page of national laws regarding concealed public carry of weapons. The L.A. Times on the controversial "open carry" movement where you let your self-defense flag fly by letting everyone see you are strapped. Rep. Cliff Stearns (Re-Fla.) in Human Events defends his state's "shall issue" standard, which is more and more the standard across the nation, for issuing carry permits as a sensible, and constitutional, public safety measure, for Florida and everyone.
To force the general public to be exposed to the risk of loaded guns...
If I mail you a SARS mask, will you feel safer?
Here's a thought, genius. The general public is already "exposed to the risk of loaded guns" on DC's streets. That's how all those muggings, robberies, rapes, and murders happen. You've had about thirty-five years of a disarmed populace to test the theory that "less guns means less crime." Now how about we give it just a couple of years to see if "more guns means more dead criminals" works better?
MarshallDodge
02-23-10, 10:20
What is the best way to support these guys? Is there a link to provide them with some funding that is tax deductible?
If I mail you a SARS mask, will you feel safer?
Here's a thought, genius. The general public is already "exposed to the risk of loaded guns" on DC's streets. That's how all those muggings, robberies, rapes, and murders happen. You've had about thirty-five years of a disarmed populace to test the theory that "less guns means less crime." Now how about we give it just a couple of years to see if "more guns means more dead criminals" works better?
I can see Todd ate his Wheaties this morning. :D
MarshallDodge
02-23-10, 10:22
"To force the general public to be exposed to the risk of loaded guns when they are out with their family in public areas is outrageous and has absolutely nothing to do with the right to defend the home," he says.
That's funny, I thought it was about the right to self defense? :confused: ;)
If I mail you a SARS mask, will you feel safer?
Here's a thought, genius. The general public is already "exposed to the risk of loaded guns" on DC's streets. That's how all those muggings, robberies, rapes, and murders happen. You've had about thirty-five years of a disarmed populace to test the theory that "less guns means less crime." Now how about we give it just a couple of years to see if "more guns means more dead criminals" works better?
Between DC, Chicago and Wyoming I'm getting pretty excited for what's happening in the 2nd Amendment world.
What is the best way to support these guys? Is there a link to provide them with some funding that is tax deductible?
Alan Gura works for the Cato Institute, as a form of contact. SAF or Second Amendment Foundation is based out of Washington. I donate money to SAF every year, if you'd like more info on them I can either post it here or PM. SAF is on the front lines defending our 2nd Amendment rights and is a great organization to belong to.
This article doesn't express my point of view but it it one guy's opinion. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/2010/02/dc_doesnt_need_more_guns_on_th.html
D.C. doesn't need
more guns on the streets
By Andy Feeney
Washington
Although I detest his politics, I feel a grudging sympathy for Tom G. Palmer, the gay Cato Institute staffer who last year joined the successful lawsuit to overturn the District’s ban on handgun ownership [“D.C. handgun ban plaintiff takes a new shot,” Metro, Feb. 21].
According to the story on Mr. Palmer’s new effort to legalize the carrying of handguns inside city limits, his possession of a handgun may have saved his life on one occasion when two apparent homophobes seemed about to assault Mr. Palmer and a straight companion. Simply by displaying his handgun to the would-be gay-bashers, Mr. Palmer reportedly forced his attackers to back down. It’s understandable that he would like to be able to do this again.
Yet I wonder what Mr. Palmer will do if his new lawsuit succeeds, and it gives violent gay-bashers, too, the right to legally carry loaded handguns in the streets. The next time Mr. Palmer is walking with a male companion down a dark street in a dodgy neighborhood, will his attackers simply shoot both of them on sight, rather than attempting the more cumbersome route of assaulting them with fists or feet?
I also fear the effect on my Mount Pleasant neighborhood, where we already experience teenage gang members firing at one another with illegal handguns. The notion that convenience-store owners confronted by armed robbers might now also be armed, and firing back, isn’t reassuring to those of us who could get caught in the crossfire.
RED This nimwit seems to think that the current law will somehow stop this from happening. Yet he also contradicts himself, in green, by admitting that they already have people firing illegal handguns in the city. And in the end, in blue, he states he's much rather the victim's be defenseless and roll over with their asses in the air. This guy needs a swift kick to the nuts.
Sorry for the obnoxious colors... maybe next time I'll just number things :D
jaybird210
02-27-10, 13:04
And why do you suppose Mr. Feeney felt compelled to comment on Palmer's sexual orientation?
I guess fear mongering is common for those folks.
I guess fear mongering is common for those folks.
Absolutely, they prey on people's fears and emotions versus appealing to their logic.
What is the best way to support these guys? Is there a link to provide them with some funding that is tax deductible?
I don't believe SAF or Cato are tax deductible as they are both political organizations and not charities, but you can join/donate money.
Here is SAF's join or donate page: http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=safdonation
Here is Cato's support page:
http://www.cato.org/support/index.html
parishioner
02-27-10, 14:51
Yet I wonder what Mr. Palmer will do if his new lawsuit succeeds, and it gives violent gay-bashers, too, the right to legally carry loaded handguns in the streets. The next time Mr. Palmer is walking with a male companion down a dark street in a dodgy neighborhood, will his attackers simply shoot both of them on sight, rather than attempting the more cumbersome route of assaulting them with fists or feet?
Why do people associate carrying a gun for self defense with murdering people you don't like? A right to carry in absolutely no way can be interpreted to "Yay, I get to murder people I don't like now!"
If a "violent-gay basher" (WTF?) really wanted to kill a gay Im 100% positive they won't be waiting for some type of legislation on concealed carry to pass to do so.
That quote is completely asinine.
parishioner
02-27-10, 14:58
Absolutely, they prey on people's fears and emotions versus appealing to their logic.
Which is funny because liberals always brag about ability to use logic.
Which is funny because liberals always brag about ability to use logic.
The facts are that they rarely use facts ;)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.