For years, former CNN Anchor Lynne Russell was the familiar face of Headline News for the country. She may soon be making headlines again as the lead plaintiff in what could prove a major Second Amendment challenge in Washington, D.C. Russell is challenging the city’s prohibition on “off-body” carrying of weapons, including keeping a handgun in a purse. That type of off-body carry is precisely what may have saved Russell’s life in a shootout with an armed assailant in 2015. Russell’s nightmare began when the armed assailant grabbed her outside of their motel in Albuquerque, New Mexico and forced her into her room. He then threw her across the room on to the bed as her husband, Chuck De Caro, a former CNN correspondent, was coming out of the shower.
Russell then had the amazing calmness and control to suggest to her husband that there might be something in her purse that the man would want. Inside was her gun and De Caro pulled it out and exchanged fire with the man. He was shot three times but survived. The assailant did not.
Both Russell and De Caro showed amazing courage. The fact that De Caro could come out of a shower naked and immediately engage a gunman in a shootout is worthy of a Die Hard sequel.
Russell is now leading the fight for others, particularly women, who use off-body carry for self-protection. For many women, a holster is not a convenient option with dresses and other outfits. Indeed, there are guns and purses specifically designed for women to blend into clothing styles.
Under D.C. Municipal Regulation § 24-2344.1 and § 24-2344.2, citizens are instructed:
2344.1A licensee shall carry any pistol in a manner that it is entirely hidden from view of the public when carried on or about a person, or when in a vehicle in such a way as it is entirely hidden from view of the public.
2344.2A licensee shall carry any pistol in a holster on their person in a firmly secure manner that is reasonably designed to prevent loss, theft, or accidental discharge of the pistol.
It is not just a matter of style. A holster on a dress outfit is more likely to stand out and could serve as an attraction for felons who are seeking to steal a weapon.
The Russell challenge seems quite strong to me. Under the post-Bruen jurisprudence, it will be difficult for the District to show historical support for limiting gun rights to on-body-carry situations.
While the District is citing a contemporary New Jersey law, that is not quite the historical support that the Court has previously demanded.
The Court held that “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” To overcome that presumption “the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
It is doubtful that any early gun laws barred carrying weapons off body. Indeed, the most common weapons like muskets necessarily were carried on horseback or kept at arm’s reach.
I have previously written how New York, D.C., and Chicago are examples of Democratic cities that routinely commit lasting self-inflicted wounds to gun control efforts with poorly conceived and poorly drafted measures.
In 2008, the District of Columbia brought us District of Columbia v. Heller, the watershed decision declaring that the Second Amendment protects the individual right of gun possession.
In 2010, Chicago brought us McDonald v. City of Chicago, in which the Court declared that that right is incorporated against state and local government.
These cities are the gifts that keep on giving for gun rights advocates. Politically, local officials are heralded for any gun control legislation and they are rarely blamed for major losses that come later in the courts — losses that often expand the reach of prior cases.
The case is Russell et.al. v. District of Columbia et.al. Case number 2024-cv-1820.
The only way the gun law retardedness gets changed is when high-profile people start getting capped off by street thugs. The same govt. morons who want to confiscate the public’s guns are the same ones who want to defund the police. Criminals don’t follow laws. Its unfortunate, but this is america, not utopia. Est. 500m firearms in public hands. Criminals go free-gunning, in gun-free zones. There is no ‘safe space’, not really. Bureaucrats live in mental utopia-land. But again, this is america. Gun laws do not stop bullets. Prisons stop criminal offenders from reoffending. Police put criminal offenders in prisons. If you want safer streets, hire more police and build more prisons.
Self-defense needs clarified and explained and illustrarted at the federal court level, including and especially ARMED self-defense. Interesting Times we live in…
Loss, theft, or accidental discharge is written in the regulations. Obviously handbags, backpacks and other are easily stolen for one.
Another angle is how can a criminal use the off body carry for criminal purposes. Law enforcement consultation for the how-to aspect necessary. Absent that information an opinion is just making shit up.
Dirty Harry
Crooks was in an open carry State? No problem carrying a rifle 130 yards from a President.
The same people who championed open borders also champion so-called gun control, which is a euphemism for eliminating gun rights.
It will never happen. They want to take your guns.Not allow more to carry, in any way shape or form.
Awww, this article made me long for the good ole days when very few CNN and MSNBC journalists were extreme Leftist, Marxist radicals shilling for Democrats!
Why is it that the 2nd amendment is the only amendment, incorporated to the states, that has markedly different rules in different states and cities? It’s absurd. If I CCW south to north on I-95, I am a law-abiding person in FL, GA, SC, NC, VA but magically become a felon when I reach MD??
I now interrupt this intellectual dialogue for a shallow, sexist comment. Lynn was hot! Smoky voice and red hair. And, obviously brainy. Maybe she was the inspiration for Jessica in Roger Rabbit. That was back in the day when CNN 24 hour news had some decent coverage of events.
If Democrats are elected and pack the SCOTUS as promised, all of these 2A arguments will become moot in short order.
What if using Hate Speech can be proven to have saved someone’s life… should it then become protected?
There’s no such thing as “hate speech”. Just speech someone might not like. But speech is speech, and all should be free to use.
A CCW is a permission slip from government to exercise a right. It isn’t hard to know what Prof. Turley’s reaction would be if any state or the federal government required people to first obtain a license to exercise their 1st Amendment rights.
Only one of the Bill of Rights’ Amendments was felt worthy of specifically including the words “shall not be infringed”. Neither at the time of ratification nor in any of the Amendments added afterwards. And yet at the same time, no Amendment has had as many attacks and infringements on it than the 2nd Amendment – and that includes Prof. Turley’s clear favorite, the 1st Amendment.
So here we are today, almost ten years after Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 forced all states in the USA to recognize marriage licenses granted to homosexuals by any other individual state. SCOTUS found that the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forces all states to recognize such a marriage if it was lawfully licensed and performed in another state.
So we can find national protection for all forms of marriage (homosexual, age, or otherwise) in the generalities of the 14th Amendment. BUT there just doesn’t seem any way to find protection for a 2nd Amendment concealed carry license to bear arms (and recognition of other states’ licenses) throughout the United States on the basis it being specifically mentioned (including ‘shall not be’ infringed) in the 2nd AND generally the 14th Amendment?
Professor Turley, do you have any thoughts on why the Obergefell decision on homosexual marriage doesn’t provide the same framework and line of reasoning that would force Democrat police state fascist states to recognize CCW licenses from Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, etc?
We can protect homosexual marriage throughout the country, but people in slaughterhouse states and cities run by Soviet Democrats do NOT have a right to their 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms to protect their lives?
And isn’t a requirement to have a CCW a government permission slip for what is supposedly a right?
The Democrats and their mainstream media Marxists have been lying their asses off to the American people about “reasonable gun control” and how it’s a supposedly a proven surrender of rights and freedoms that results in Americans having more safety and security in exchange.
“A CCW is a permission slip from government to exercise a right.”
A great point that gets to the essence of a right. A permission is the antithesis of a right.
ccw’s? we don’t need no stinking ccw badges. molon labe to the stinking dems. we wait. you will dei.
“Shall NOT Be Infringed.”
Neat,Sweet and concise
“Harris ‘veepstakes’ reaches fever pitch”
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4795393-harris-veepstakes-reaches-fever-pitch/
There’s a definite 3% decline in yawning whenever someone mentions “Harris’ VP” as opposed to when someone mentions “VP Harris,” which still breaks the yawn-o-rameter.
“Russell is challenging the city’s prohibition on ‘off-body’ carrying of weapons, including keeping a handgun in a purse.”
Why can’t she just wear a gun hat like normal people?
Oretty good takedown of the left generally with some parts focusing on Harris’s role in the destruction of San Francisco
https://youtu.be/vFC63gfrMAw
“FBI confirms Trump struck by bullet after Wray testimony”
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4795681-fbi-confirms-trump-struck-by-bullet/
Translation: It took the FBI TWO WEEKS to figure out that there were too many witnesses and there was too much evidence to pull off another FRAUD in this particular instance.
So it’s back to the drawing board to come up with a better shooter and Plan B assassination plot. The fraudulent Gomers at the FBI need to re-study what they did that made Lee Harvey Oswald successful. They’ve perfected the part about killing the shooter to eliminate the coconspirator, but the rest of their scheme needs a serious re-think.
https://i.imgur.com/fyah6B0.png
“Kamala Harris Secures Liberal White Women Vote By Always Being Drunk And Intolerable”
https://babylonbee.com/news/kamala-harris-secures-liberal-white-women-vote-by-always-being-drunk-and-intolerable
The don’t call her Black Hillary for nothing.
Purses with gun compartments inside have been available for decades. You stick your hand in one end, and pull it out.
“Some House Republicans slam Vance as Trump’s VP pick: ‘The worst choice’”
https://thehill.com/homenews/4793818-vance-vp-trump-house-republicans/
“A number of House Republicans are privately bashing former President Trump’s selection of Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) as his running mate, warning that the pick will not help — and could hurt — the party’s chances of winning in November. The Republicans, speaking to The Hill on the condition of anonymity …”
LOL — Not ONE is identified. The Hill is pure just-make-stuff-up Washington UniParty TRASH.
@Anonymous
I don’t disagree, Vance is too hard conservative for most non-conservatives, including me (it’s the same reason, other than Mollie Hemingway, I do not care for things like The Federalist). I don’t like or share many of his values; he was a poor choice if Republicans want to dispel the notion that they are anything but a bunch of Christian nationalists. Turns me right off. 🤷🏽♂️ It won’t deter me from voting for Trump, but it could a lot of others, easily. I really wish they’d picked Tulsi instead.
Tulsi Gabbard is a hardcore SOCIALIST. She renounced the democrat party (AFTER voting for Obama, Hillary, AND Joetard AND co-chairing the Bernie Sanders 2016 campaign) because the democrat party wouldn’t vote for her (because she co-chaired the Bernie Sanders campaign against the unprosecuted multiple felon formerly known as “Hillary in a landslide”), but she’s never renounced socialism.
They never mention that at Fake Fox “News.” They dropped that information into the memory hole along with socialist Chris Wallace.
You should stop watching Fake Fox — or watch it if you like a sneaky newcast that’s pro-socialism. Just don’t believe the swill they feed their ignorant, ill-informed viewers.
“Tulsi Gabbard is a hardcore SOCIALIST.”
False, prior to being erlected to the house of representatives Gabbard was a pro-business democrat in office in Hawaii.
She may not be a Laisaez Faire republicans, but she is not a socialist.
“She renounced the democrat party (AFTER voting for Obama, Hillary, AND Joetard AND co-chairing the Bernie Sanders 2016 campaign)”
False – She endorsed Sanders over Clinton – primarily because Sanders – LIKE TRUMP opposes the neocon endless wars nonsense – that Hillary ALSO supports. She gave the nominating speech for Obama in 2008.
Absolutely she was PNG in the democratic party for Standing up to Hillary – but much or the country thinks that is a big plus.
“because the democrat party wouldn’t vote for her”
She did better in the 2020 primaries than Harris and she eviscerated Harris int he debates forcing her out of the race.
“she’s never renounced socialism.”
Correct – she has also never endorsed it either.
I suspect that Gabbard is to the left of Manchin on economic issues, but all the evidence is that she is to the right of nearly all the democratic party.
Regardless, Economics has NEVER been Gabbard’s focus. It is not what she talks about – not as a democrat, not as an independent.
Gabbard’s huge issue is the missuse of US Soldiers for murky political ends.
She stands WITH Sanders AND Trump on that and opposes Clinton, and Biden and Bush on that.
Sanders is a nitwit economically – but he is 10,000 miles away from Neocons like Bush, Chenney, and Clinton on issues involving the US use of force globally – he is the same place as Trump on much of foreign policy.
Gabbard has changed parties. You can fault her for not realizing the threat that Obama was to her values in 2008 – though I would note that Obama ran much like Sanders ran – promising to get the US out of foreign entanglements. You can fault Gabbard for beleiving him – though many both on the right and the left beleived him.
OIn a significant number of issues Gabbard is to the right of Trump and Vance.
She is likely to the left of most republicans on economic issues – but she is NOT a socialist and never has been.
Supporting Sanders over Clinton does not make you a socialist.
Gabbard IS a socialist, fool.
Tulsi sponsored an “assault weapon ban” in Congress, and several other anti-gun bills.
Good take down, John Say. Socialism is already part of America. For many of those who critique US politicians who allegedly embrace it, they couldnt survive without Federal entitlement programs, which account for ~ 45% of the federal budget.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/
Medicare, VA Benefits, and Social Security are entitlements where Americana receive far more than what they contributed. Two hospital admissions for typical length of stay for common diagnosis consume the equivalent of the patient’s contribution to Medicare. If they have heart surgery, hip replacement, knee replacement, etc, they are benefiting at the cost to others… socialism
Shut it all down esp VA benefits for non-combat related maladies. Vets should be covered for injuries sustained while serving. But most VA patrons milk the system just like Medicare patients, e.g. Dick Cheney underwent a heart transplant at 71 yrs of age, which ordinarily would not be done at that age. Socialism / Medicare paid for it.
““Tulsi Gabbard is a hardcore SOCIALIST.”
False, prior to being erlected to the house of representatives Gabbard was a pro-business democrat in office in Hawaii.”
John, as I said earlier, we must learn more about Tulsi. She peaked too soon, and that peak occurred when she was too far left. Her views are in flux, but her big plus for strict Libertarians is she is against the war on drugs and is pro-marijuana. She appears, however, to be an independent thinker moving away from socialism. Still, based on her historical values, I cannot see how any libertarian would support her with a complete review.
Here are a few of her positions, though she is evolving away from her socialist path.
Socialized medicine
Should our healthcare system include illegal aliens?
Raise corporate taxes to 35%
Wealth tax?
Abortion: pro-choice and probably a firm supporter of Roe v. Wade. I do not concern myself with personal positions, but the decision belongs to the states.
She wanted the wall with a path for dreamers. I don’t know what her thoughts are today. She criticized Trump’s immigration policies.
Free tuition for higher education
She supported the Paris climate accords and tax incentives for solar and wind. However, she opposed offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and wanted to regulate greenhouse gases. She also wanted a ban on fracking.
There is plenty more against and in support of Tulsi. John, as I said before, I find her refreshing, but I don’t know how a libertarian or conservative can support her today without thoroughly reviewing what she wants. Your support of Tulsi always perplexes me.
—-
I would like to know where you think she is to the right of Trump and/or Vance.
@Anonymous
You are very presumptuous – I don’t watch ANY network news. Zip, zilch, nada, and as mentioned, I am NOT a conservative, nor am I stupid. You are entitled to your opinions, but you can stuff the invective presumptions; he may very well be a standup dude, but I find Vance as *politically* repulsive as you do Tulsi; I also find hard conservatism repulsive – but I respect people’s right to believe as they wish. That is my opinion.
James,
You have attacked Vance, the Federalist, and christian nationalists – whatever they are.
Tulsi would have been an interesting choice. Trump had many interesting choices – and Vance was one of them.
But on innumerable issues Tulsi is significantly to the right of Vance today – so I do not understand your “hard conservative” claim.
I am not even sure what a hard conservative is or why that is a bad thing.
Vance ran for and won a senate seat in Ohio – which was a purple state not so long ago, and even today is definitely NOT Alabama as an example.
To win in Ohio Vance had to make clear his positions on a number of issues and gain the support of the people of Ohio.
So Vance is NOT some sealed book his positions on numerous issues are clear.
So which are the ones you have a problem with ?
I would also ask – have you heard Tulsi speak in the past 2 years ? On a large number of issues she is to the right of Trump.
“circling back” what is a hard conservative ?
Conservative is NOT an ideology. It is the recognition that most change results in failure. That is a fact. It is one of the reasons that wherever possible we should bring about change through free markets not govenrment. Markets are very good at dealing with failure.
Outside of government we can fail many times in a row before we finally succeed and still have a significant net positive.
Conversely Government is the one thing that we really really really do not ever want to fail. Worse still government is really really really bad at dealing with failure.
That is the essence of “conservatism” – it is not ideology, it is just a reality based form of pragmatism.
The political parties have changed radically over my lifetime.
There used to be conservative democrats and conservative republicans and liberal democrats and liberal republicans.
To SOME extent I think that is still true.
But it is not true of the leadership of either party today.
The democratic leadership is progressive, the republican leadership is conservative.
Progressivism has a strong emotional appeal – but because nearly all change results in failure and because government is not where we want failure and government is very bad at dealing with failure – progressive government always performs badly.
As we have seen with Obama and Biden.
But each party is more than just conservative or progressive.
Again in the past 2 decades we have been in the midst of a political sea change in policies and ideology and the positions of each party.
While there were Censorious Democrats in the 50’s – HUAC and Blacklists and the MacCarthy era censorship are strongly identified with Republicans and the restoration of individual freedom more associated with democrats.
Democrats were the party of labor
Republicans the party of big business, and the elites.
On these and many other things Republicans and Democrats have flipped.
I think it is highly likely Trump wins this election – but even if he does not – the tide is heavily against the left right now.
Both in the US and accross the west. European governments are all slowly moving right.
While right and left are not exactly the same in Europe as the US – Le Penn as an example is just a right leaning socialist – regardless Europe is moving right. The US is moving right.
I have talked about conservative vs. progressive.
I have talked about Who makes up the democratic party today and who makes up the republican party and how that makeup is changing.
Woody Guthrie would likely be a Republican today.
But finally we get to policies – to the positions of the parties on various issues.
And again Republicans and democrats are NOT where they were 10, 20, 40 years ago. They have not exactly switched sides on issues – because Republicans do not hold exactly the views of democrats on Free speech as an example that Democrats did 50 years ago,
But both parties are closer to 180 from where they were.
My question is – you have a problem with Vance.
Please articulate the problem.
He has an incredible Bio. He was damn near born in a log cabin for real. Which is nearly impossible for someone his age.
He was raised in a broken family with an absent and abusive farther, while he was raised by strong women – his mother was a drug addict, and everyone who raised him was broken. Yet he succeeded, He went to college, then Harvard Law, the Marines serving in Iraq, and on to a very successful business career and then Won a Senate Seat first time out in politics.
JD Vance’s success makes him one of the elites – but not his values.
Is there some specific policy posistion that you have a problem with Vance ?
You also take issue with “the Federalist” – but not Molly Hemingway – I am not sure what that means because Hemmingway pretty well reflects the federalist.
Regardless what is it that you take issue with ?
Is it the Federalist magazine ? It is Federalism ?
From your comment you have made clear who you like and who you don’t – but not why ?
James posted: Vance is too hard conservative for most non-conservatives, including me… I really wish they’d picked Tulsi instead.
Meanwhile, I think Tulsi Gabbard is a decent human being just as Vance is – but she’s still got too much socialism running through her blood.
If I must choose, I’ll take a bunch of Christian nationalists (sounds like a DNC label) over a bunch of Republican soft socialists and former DNC socialists drafted for an election. You can claim she’s not a REAL socialist – but like Harris and Trump, she has a history. It is quite possible for politicians as well as voters to change their opinions and stances with time. Vance has done it, Gabbard has done it, and Trump has done it as well.
I can’t think of any candidate close to being perfect, including Trump with promises he will help Americans by imposing a 10% tariff most thinking Americans realize will be passed on to the consumer.
6 house democrtats voted to condemn Harris for her handling of the Border.