The Stink Eye Conservative Forum; Politics, News, Republican Election Headquarters

Justice never sleeps?. not even on a Saturday afternoon, when this opinion was just handed down.

    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. Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia?s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs? motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code ? 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code ? 22-4504(a) 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.4 Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District.

In 2012, I won Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012), which struck down Illinois? total ban on the carrying of defensive handguns outside the home. With this decision in Palmer, the nation?s last explicit ban of the right to bear arms has bitten the dust. Obviously, the carrying of handguns for self-defense can be regulated. Exactly how is a topic of severe and serious debate, and courts should enforce constitutional limitations on such regulation should the government opt to regulate. But totally banning a right literally spelled out in the Bill of Rights isn?t going to fly.  My deepest thanks to the Second Amendment Foundation for making this victory possible and to my clients for hanging in there. Congratulations Americans, your capital is not a constitution-free zone.