News

D.C. Drops Appeal Of Concealed-Carry Victory

Second Amendment Foundaton

The city of Washington, D.C. has dropped its appeal of the Palmer v. District of Columbia case, which forced the city to adopt a carry permitting structure. See our previous coverage of this important gun-rights case here and here and here. Legal sources with knowledge of the case told The Shooter’s Log that D.C. likely dropped its appeal at the behest of lawyers representing former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Reason: An adverse D.C. loss in Palmer could influence an upcoming en banc rehearing of the Peruta and Richards “may issue” decisions in California’s Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Second Amendment Foundaton
SAF funded the Palmer case and was one of the plaintiffs.

By abandoning its appeal, D.C. would contain the damage anti-gun litigators suffered in Palmer to one district court, rather than a likely appeals-court loss that would occur at the same judicial level as Peruta. According to our source, “Bloomberg lawyers” see the field in California tilted their way because the head of the en banc panel rehearing Peruta was the dissenting vote in the original 2-1 decision, which struck down San Diego’s “may carry” regulations.

In his original 19-page Palmer ruling, U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., wrote, “In light of Heller, McDonald and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny.” Additionally, the court enjoined “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.” The court also ordered the city to allow legally qualified residents from the District and other states to carry weapons within its boundaries.

This is not the end of the Palmer case, however. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), which funded the court battle and was one of the original plaintiffs, along with Tom G. Palmer, George Lyon, Edward Raymond, and Amy McVey, still has outstanding enforcement motions pending before Judge Scullin. His rulings on those motions could produce further appeals, SAF attorney Alan Gura explained. SAF has already filed a lawsuit challenging the District’s current highly restrictive “good reason” requirement.

Under the District’s newly-adopted law, permit applicants must still provide a good reason for carrying a protective firearm outside the home, and the police chief gets to decide whether that reason is valid. So far, only a handful of applicants have been approved, a situation similar to many counties in California.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said, “While we’re happy to see the city drop [its] appeal of our earlier victory, we were eager to face them in court, as there was no possible way they could have successfully argued in favor of continuing an outright ban on carry in the District.

“No public official should enjoy that kind of sway over a citizen’s right to bear arms,” Gottlieb said. “It creates a manifestly unfair system that is wide open to abuse and favoritism, as we’ve seen in New York, California and elsewhere that insiders and elitists can get permits, but average citizens are routinely given second-class consideration, or no consideration at all.”

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (29)

  1. I expect the 9th to toss out the Peruda decision. That will then stand as the cowardly SCOTUS will not take another gun case, probably in my lifetime. Our SDSD sheriff Bill Gore, the hero of Ruby Ridge will be the final arbiter of my god given rights for self protection as it has been here for many years. The result is there will be states with rights and states without rights, all to be allowed by the SCOTUS. Eventually, secession will be the result, another civil war will be avoided from lack of interest.

  2. I bought a gun in Nov.2014..I had to do an expunge from something that
    happened 20 yrs. ago..took nine weeks and $900.00 for a lawyer for the expunge to get approved by the county judge and
    now I have been waiting 7 weeks for my background check to go through the state popo even though my extension date was till Apr.6.I am still waiting as I write this.I don’t know what the hell I will do if they decide to not
    approve it since I live in a libtard city.Pray for me!

  3. The main reason the lower 48 have never even been considered form a direct ground envision is the fact they have no way of knowing how many ground troops the U.S. has as long as we the people are armed.
    this makes me wonder who the anti’s are really working for and why they would want to weaken our home defenses with so much turmoil in the world today. the Cold War has gone underground in the U.S. and are heard every day on their sympathic main steam media

    1. The constitution doesn’t give us rights. It limits what the government can do. It protects us from anti-gun idiots, like Bloomberg.

    2. Our Constitution Recognizes our Rights, Rights that we have already and always have had. NO government has ever granted anyone any right at any time so therefore, without proper procedure, they have NO Constitutional Authority to deny any Legal Law Abiding Citizen any Right whatsoever, regardless of their bias toward any Amendment, focusing mainly on our 2nd Amendment. The last 4 words of our 2nd clearly define the order to all to Keep Hands Off!
      The only way any bureaucracy could legally deny citizens from carrying concealed is by and through the process of a Constitutional Convention! and Ratified by the Majority of our country.
      We, the People, Constitutionally, do NOT have to obey any anti-firearms laws but this is why law abiding citizens are called just that, even though such laws are Illegal.

    3. The Bill of Rights dictates where government authority ends and personal liberty begins. Governments as a class do NOT like there to be limits to their authority and will always push that line as hard as they can until they are pulled up short by the Courts, & particularly the Supreme Court.

      The 2nd Amendment has four parts, of which the SCotUS has ruled on two, and has not ruled on two, in Heller & McDonald.

      SCotUS said that you do not have to be a member of a recognized “militia” to have the right to “keep” arms. Second, SCotUS ruled that you did have the right to KEEP arms — but only in your home.

      Your right to BEAR arms OUTSIDE your home was NOT ruled upon in “Heller”. Nor was the fourth part of the 2nd AM; what does “infringe” mean?

      Anti-gun jurisdictions like CA, NY, MD, NJ, DC, and the rest continue to hang their legal positions on this lack of a specific SCotUS ruling on “to Bear”.

      As they see it, SCotUS has not “ordered” them to recognize the citizens right to BEAR the same guns they are forced to recognize May be kept in the home.

      This cannot last. At the moment, your 2nd AM right keep arms under the Bill of Rights is the ONLY ONE THAT ENDS AT YOUR FRONT DOOR.

      Your rights of speech, religion, the press, etc., do not end at your front door. There is nothing in the 2nd AM that says it ends at your front door.

      Quite the contrary; it clearly says you have the right to not only “Keep” arms. It clearly says you have the right to BEAR arms.

      But CA, MD, NY, and the rest WILL continue to drag their feet on this right to BEAR arms right up to the point that SCotUS tells them, in no uncertain terms, that they can no longer do so.

  4. Hear is what the gun control nuts in California think of your personal safety, quoting from Richards vs. Prieto Motion, “The San Diego Sheriff defined ‘good cause’ as a ‘set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and cause him or her to be placed in harm’s way . . . one’s personal safety alone is not considered good cause.'” (Id., 6.), Richards, et al., vs. Prieto; County of Yolo, Petition for Rehearing En Banc, Pg.5, n.3

    1. You think that idiot sheriff in SDiego would say the same thing if it was his wife or son or daughter that was the “one” person whose safety was not considered a good cause? He is freaking retarded imho!

    2. Eye halve a spelling chequer
      It came with my pea sea
      It plainly marques four my revue
      Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

      Eye strike a key and type a word
      And weight four it two say
      Weather eye am wrong oar write
      It shows me strait a weigh.

      As soon as a mist ache is maid
      It nose bee fore two long
      And eye can put the error rite
      Its rare lea ever wrong.

      Eye have run this poem threw it
      I am shore your pleased two no
      Its letter perfect awl the weigh
      My chequer tolled me sew.

    1. I agree the Second Amendment is my permit, but try telling that to the cop who is about to blow your brains out on the side of the road?

    2. Why is it that I need a permit at all to carry a fire arm. I don’t need a permit to carry out any other of my constitutional rights? If I have done nothing wrong, why should I not just be able to freely carry and bear arms.

  5. Hey GRA man-I agree. I am originally from NYC and if we were to witness the trials for graft and corruption in this country and dont think we would live long enough.Lets start with Reid,Feinstein,clinton-just about the whole damned Democrat party and their Union “buddies”

    1. Enough with the “Union Buddies ” already. I can assure you as a Union Pipefitter that well over 80% of union members fully support the bill of rights, Especially the 2nd amendment! You may have not noticed due to the National bashing of Unions- but MOST union members enjoy the outdoors more than the average citizen. You want to beat these “gun grabbers” then quit being one of the misinformed that are just working to divide the very people that support our mutual cause! United we stand, Divided we fall!

    2. What do you have against a union? I am a long time union worker and I’m very pro gun. In fact, almost 90% of my union brothers and sisters own and/or carry. Do you enjoy a standard workweek, paid holidays, employee sponsored health care? If so then thank a UNION worker. Nothing more annoying than the uninformed talking about something they don’t have a clue about.

    3. Why then, don’t you rally the 90% of your members to stop supporting and electing communist puppet politicians who want to take away our rights?

    4. Jeff, WE DO rally 90+% of our members to do just as you request! Unions only account for 11% of the workforce- even though we are blamed or 90% of all fiscal problems. We ARE doing our part, so why don’t you step up to the plate and rally 90% of your counterparts and put your money where your mouth is?

  6. I fully agree with G-man’s opening sentence; yes indeed, I am still bothered by the arrogant attitudes and absolute corruption that not only plagues DC but in several other areas all over this great nation. I beg to survive to the day I may see Bloomberg, et al, tried and convicted for graft and treason.

  7. It is great news for us, that the attorneys involved feel the need to “contain the damage” from a judge who writes “there is no longer any basis on which [to] conclude that [a] total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny.”

  8. This should bother anyone regardless of which side you are on; that any one group wields so much power as to successfully influence local DC official’s decisions into manipulating court proceedings in order to affect and coordinate with non-government groups in a completely different jurisdiction at the opposite end of our country.

    This screams corruption when such a dissimilar party as the District of Columbia flagrantly collaborates with privately funded anti-gun groups.

    There is so much legalese and maneuvering involved by the anti-gun movement that these Justices and public officials have completely lost sight as to what it’s really all about anymore. They have no idea they are mere pawns in a game actually controlled by the Bloomberg elitists.

    Once the dust settles, these pawns will hopefully realize what their elitists masters have known all along – which is, the only people ever effectively disarmed by these anti-gun laws are the law abiding citizens themselves, and not the criminals.

    So once that eventually becomes fully realized, one has to ask the simple question – why are the elitists behind the funding of this ant-gun movement machine so bent struck on disarming the legitimate, hard working class of citizens?

    This was never about the criminal element; it was always about controlling the population. And until such time the citizenry can be disarmed, the elitists know they will never be in complete control.

    1. Right on the money G-Man. The nuts have never cared about public safety as it relates to gun ownership. They know damn go and well that things like a nation gun registry will do nothing but tell the governments where to knock down doors. The elitists will continue pushing the agenda until they either get what they want or they push us into a great confrontation. Regarding the latter, based on what I’ve seen so far, I suspects the majority of gun owners will actually roll over rather than fight. I hope I’m wrong.

  9. Wow! A victory for the little people.The question I keep asking is WHY do the AMERICAN PEOPLE have to constantly stand up to a government that is supposed to “uphold’ our rights? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say our Representatives job is to attack us.As for our “c inc” imagine a President more interested in protecting Americans and our interests than in the interests of Iran,Muslim Brotherhood,Isis expansion etc,etc.-Barrack Hussein Chamberland.

  10. I obtain a permit in my state even though I don’t have to based on being a cop. It is the law and I think it should apply to everyone. That being said I believe concealed carry permits are just another way of cataloging gun owners. The entire nation should follow Arizona and a handful of other states with “Constitutional ” carry. There is no reason to catalog law abiding citizens who want to excercise their rights.

Leave a Reply to Dannymac Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit exceeded. Please click the reload button and complete the captcha once again.

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.