Carrying Guns In Public Is A "Core" 2nd Amendment Right

Garys

NES Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
22,411
Likes
8,908
Location
Watching the Hippos
Feedback: 98 / 0 / 0
So says a judge in the Federal Circuit Court for DC in this opinion.

federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down Washington, DC's latest attempt to limit residents from carrying guns in public.

The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit held in a 2-1 decision that public carrying of firearms is a "core" Second Amendment right, and that the District's regulations amounted to a "total ban" on exercising that right. The ruling breaks with several federal appeals courts that upheld similar regulations in other states.

"For that long struggle against gun violence, you might see in today’s decision a defeat; you might see the opposite. To say whether it is one or the other is beyond our ken here. We are bound to leave the District as much space to regulate as the Constitution allows — but no more," DC Circuit Judge Thomas Griffith wrote in the majority opinion.

It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS grants the inevitable petition for Cert.

The entire decision is here.

Briefs filed and case argued by Alan Gura.
 
Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Joshua N. Auerbach, Assistant Attorney General, Maura Healey, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York, Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Oregon, Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Washington, Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of California, George Jepsen, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Connecticut, Douglas S. Chin, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Hawaii, Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Illinois, and Tom Miller, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Iowa, were on the brief for amici curiae in support of appellees.

Nice. Not enough that she's f-ing up her own state. She has to branch out.
 
Last edited:
"The Second Amendment erects some absolute barriers that no gun law may breach. This lesson will prove crucial as we consider the challenges presented in these cases to the District of Columbia's limits on carrying guns in public."

translation: figure it out, DC City Council. You can't pretend 2A doesn't exist.
 
It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS grants the inevitable petition for Cert.
First step is en banc. I predict it will be granted, and there is a better than 50% chance the decision will be overturned. Just remember the excitement with the Maryland case was won, only to be reversed.
 
What was the path for Heller? Did it go through an en banc rehearing?

First step is en banc. I predict it will be granted, and there is a better than 50% chance the decision will be overturned. Just remember the excitement with the Maryland case was won, only to be reversed.
 
This, by the way, is a dupe.

Not the OP's fault, though. The title doesn't make it obvious.
 
I just read the decision and I'm asking myself whether or not the SCOTUS declined to hear Peruta since this case may actually have a stronger standing. Could they possibly foresee a case like this coming down the pipeline?

Getting ahead of myself here: if the SCOTUS were to rule in favor of the plaintiffs, would this eliminate "may issue" laws AND decide that carrying outside the home is a right?
IANAL.
 
Back
Top Bottom