United States District Court Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. has finally handed down a ruling in Palmer v. District of Columbia overturned the city’s total ban on residents on carrying firearms outside their home. The litigants repeatedly went to court to try to force Scullin to rule during the five year wait for a decision. They probably now feel it was worth the wait. The court held the D.C. law was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The D.C. Attorney General’s Office and city council has continued to resist the rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) and have spent copious amounts of money and time defending this law. The city could have drafted more tailored laws but seemed intent to re-fight aspects of its historic loss in Heller. The Office of Attorney General continues to dig a deeper hole both legally and financially for the citizens in such litigation.
D.C. Code § 7-2502.01(a) provides that “no persons or organization in the District shall possess or control any firearm, unless the persons or organization holds a valid registration certificate for the firearm.” However, D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) provides that individuals who are not retired police officers may only register a handgun “for use in self-defense within that person’s home.”
The court held:
Thus, having concluded that carrying a handgun outside the home for self-defense comes within the meaning of “bear[ing] Arms” under the Second Amendment, the Court must now ask whether the District of Columbia’s total ban on the carrying of handguns within the District “infringes” that right.
This question is not difficult to answer. As the Seventh Circuit stated in Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012), “[a] blanket prohibition on carrying gun[s] in public prevents a person from defending himself anywhere except inside his home; and so substantial a curtailment of the right of armed self-defense requires a greater showing of justification than merely that the public might benefit on balance from such a curtailment, though there is no proof that it would.” Id. at 940. This does not mean that the government cannot place some reasonable restrictions on carrying of handguns; for example, “when a state bans guns merely in particular places, such as public schools, a person can preserve an undiminished right of self-defense by not entering those places; since that’s a lesser burden, the state doesn’t need to prove so strong a need.” Id. The District of Columbia appears to be the only jurisdiction that still has such a complete ban on the carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home. That does not mean that other jurisdictions are indifferent to the dangers that the widespread public carrying of guns; rather, those jurisdictions “have decided that a proper balance between the interest in self-defense and the dangers created by carrying guns in public is to limit the right to carry a gun to responsible persons rather than to ban public carriage altogether[.]” Id. at 940. In addition, to “the usual prohibitions of gun ownership by children, felons, illegal aliens, lunatics, and in sensitive places such as public schools, the propriety of which was not questioned in Heller . . . some states sensibly require that an applicant for a handgun permit establish his competence in handling firearms.” Id. at 940-41 (internal parenthetical omitted). Some states “also permit private businesses and other private institutions (such as churches) to ban guns from their premises.” Id. at 941.
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.
The case is Palmer v. Fjs Dist. of Columbia & Cathy Lanier, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101945
Here is the decision: Palmer
Schulte
Why limit it to judges to be fired, why not clean out all of the liars in the Justice department, the IRS and the plug in the Senate (Harry Reid)? But don’t stop there, don’t forget the White House.
“Unfortunately I envision the DC government will continue to make excuses in denying citizens their second amendment rights. It will be one battle after another even if they are on the losing side each time.”
Not long after Heller came out, I was listening to the local NPR affiliate interview some DC politicians. The stated, essentially bragged, that they would use any legal argument they could think of in an attempt to limit the effects of Heller.
Often enough gun advocates are accused of being paranoid regarding the intentions of those who want to limit gun ownership. Actually you don’t have to look far at all to find clear statements by those who oppose the second amendment that they intend to do what ever possible to thwart it.
This Scullin guy is a RepubliCon and he is only 75. Here is some wiki information:
Early life and education[edit]Scullin was born in Syracuse, New York. He attended Niagara University (B.S., 1961), and Syracuse University College of Law (LL.B.,1964).
After graduating from law school, Scullin served in the United States Army as an Infantry Commander in Vietnam.
Professional career[edit]Scullin practiced law as a private attorney and in various prosecutors’ offices from 1967 to 1982. In 1982 he was appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York by President Ronald Reagan. He served in the position for ten years until 1992.
Judicial tenure[edit]On September 12, 1991, Scullin was nominated to the Northern District bench by President George H. W. Bush. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on February 6, 1992, and received his commission on February 10, 1992.
He served as Chief Judge of the District from 2000 until 2006, when he assumed senior status.
Scullin was also appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a term of seven years running from 2004 until 2011.
On July 26, 2014, Judge Scullin struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on carrying handguns outside of a person’s home, saying that the ban violated the Second Amendment.[1] He wrote that “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.”[2]
–end
On my planet Remulak, 75 is a young chicken, as you guys say it.
“”Paul C. Schulte
I think we need to start fining judges who take forever to make a decision.””
THANK YOU.
The executive branch is under the threat of a law suit and impeachment. Why not the judicial branch?
It is long past time for punitive measures on the entire judicial branch. Acts of supreme arrogance and corruption by all levels of the judicial branch must be subject to the most severe penalties for insidious abuses of power and betrayal of the public trust.
In China, public corruption is a capital offense.
The offense begins when the a court “legislates from the bench” usurping the power of the legislative branch, Under the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights, the power is vested solely in the people through elected representatives in Congress. The judicial branch has one duty which is to determine if the actions of a party in a matter comport with the Constitution and the law.
The judicial branch does not obtain the power to legislate because it claims it cannot understand the English language. Preposterous. As in the current issue of the ACA tax credits, if the judicial branch cannot understand the language of a law, the law should revert to its source for corrective action. It is clear that the judicial branch fully understands the wording of the law but does not agree with the literal law or its effect.
The judicial branch decides on ideology and party affiliation rather than objective assessment of action related to the literal law. The judicial branch overreaches its limits and authority. The judicial branch is lawless and in contempt of Congress. The judicial branch is arrogant and illegally usurps power it is denied by the Constitution. The SINGULAR historical American failure is the judicial branch. Rather than support and enforce implementation of the Constitution, the judicial branch has been the source of corruption of the American thesis.
Who gonna do dis to Amurka?
There are two issues here: the right to bear arms in the District of Columbia and anywhere in these United States; and, Senior status and slow judicial conduct.
The decision is well written. But, what would Paul Revere say about the right to bear arms when it is defined as only for self defense. The right to bear arms is the right to have a rifle at home and a handgun or two and to assemble in a hurray with Murray on the street corner when the British are coming. Do we think that the British will never come? Probably they have deficiencies in that regard but they were our Lords and we were the Lassies and we had to rebel. We may need to rebel against some Koch Brothers power take over right in Washington DC. We may get fed up with NSA reading our emails. This Judge here does not speak for Originalism or the Intent of the Framers of the Second Amendment. I contend that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment meant that this extended to the states- that they may not impinge our right to bear arms. General Grant, having just pardoned officers and troops at Appomattox, allowed the Officers to return home with their sidearms. Grant was later President when the 14th was enacted.
Senior Status and Slow Judicial Conduct. Five years? Someone tell us more about this Judge from New York. Many of you lawyers out there might have a case or two languishing in a federal court because some old senile schmuck cannot make up his mind, mind his computer, or ask his law clerks to write him a decision. We need a Constitutional Amendment similar to the 26th Amendment which made age 18 the right to vote. 18 Up and Out. So age 70 should be the end of a judicial career. Some states require this of their state court judges. There are really exceptional minds who are in their 80s and 90s who still perform great work on a timely basis. One on the 8th Circuit comes to my mind.
There is a third issue not addressed in the article regarding the Second Amendment. The right to arm bears. More on that later.
The mylitia is no longer under house arrest?
Gotta start somewhere.
HURRAH!
I think we need to start fining judges who take forever to make a decision.
This is a very bad decision for the chalk industry. Lots of people being shot on the streets of DC has meant fabulous profits for the chalk companies selling police-grade chalk to the cops that trace the outlines of dead bodies on the sidewalks. Having an armed populace is likely to result in fewer killings, having an adverse impact on chalk vendors.
On the upside, more Congressmen may end up being shot down when they rip off the hookers and drug dealers working 14th Street. This will teach those clowns they gotta pay to play – just like they tell their campaign contributors.
Finally.
Unfortunately I envision the DC government will continue to make excuses in denying citizens their second amendment rights. It will be one battle after another even if they are on the losing side each time.
Allowing retired police officers to carry while restricting citizens (who may be equally or better qualified) demonstrates that this law less concerned about “safety” and more concerned about making sure that only those with the Establishment connections can be armed.
Dog; right now we have essentially a do nothing administration in D.C. when it comes to foreign policy, Is the world more peaceful now or it coming apart at the seams? The police respond to the crime after the fact, therefore to protect yourself a person needs to carry a gun. A lot of mass killings take place in gun free zones.
Two of the most violent cities have the strictest gun laws. All those laws have achieved is disarming the good people, making them easier prey for the bad people. Kudos to the court.
Good for the people of DC!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Five years!
What other profession allows fives years to ruminate on something that is in its own words: “…not difficult to answer.”
Judge Scullin came to the right answer, but he sure took his sweet time while doing so (and while collecting a handsome paycheck).
Doglover-You realize that the “massive killings and genocide around the world, facilitated by people in Washington D.C.” refers to people that the rest of the country senss here, right?
As far as Washington DC is concerned, massive killings and genocide around the world, facilitated by people in Washington DC., are a bigger concern than whether or not individuals make their own personal decisions about guns.