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.
When are we going to put an emphasis on the bad guys and not vilify the victims who have to protect themselves by any means?
Marbgot, that day is coming. Independent Bob.
Historically, the authorities would disarm the peasants. Historically, America 🇺🇸 would arm the People, of both sexes, to be prepared. Historically, generally, Americans, outside of slavery and Diversity, did not exercise liberal license to entertain critical theories and minority reports. Good for her to have the presence of mind to be armed, and her husband to mitigate criminal progress with probable abortive or rape… rape-rape intent.
Jonathan: It appears there is no gun regulation anywhere that, in your view, should be enforced. If I didn’t know better I would think you are a shill for the NRA and the gun manufacturer’s lobby. Contrary to the reasoning of the right-wing of the SC in Bruen, there is a long “historical tradition” of gun regulation in this country. I say this from studying my family history in Kansas.
As pointed out in a much earlier comment my great-great uncle was a Marshall on the Dodge City Peace Commission in the early 1890s. He served along with Wyatt Earp, Luke Short and other well known luminaries of the era. Earp was charged by the Dodge City Council with cleaning up the “Wild West” image of the town. The city fathers were concerned about travelers on trains going through town and complaining about cowboys and others getting drunk and shooting up the town. The railroads had recently been linked from east to west and the wealthy frequently traveled with their families from the cold during winters in the east to their summer homes in the west. They didn’t want family members to be exposed to gun violence. So the Dodge City Council passed a regulation that no one could bring a gun into town. Wyatt Earp was charged with enforcing that regulation. And he did. Every cowboy or other person with a gun had to drop it off at the Marshall’s office before going into town. Anyone who refused was arrested and put into jail. There were similar gun regulations in other towns in the area and throughout the southwest.
The right-wing of the SC ignored this long “historical tradition” in Bruen. That’s because it is in the hip pocket of the gun lobby. You appear to be in the same position by supporting any court decision that strikes down a sensible gun regulation. If you have your way it will be back to the “Wild, Wild West” in large cities like NY, DC and Chicago. So we are headed “Back to the Future”. I am confident the 20 yr. shooter who tried to kill DJT will be celebrating from his grave!
Dennis;
What JT consistently points out is that many gun regulations are NOT consistent with the constitution.
That is NOT the same as opposing such regulations conceptually.
Though in this case we should not have sexist gun regulations. Women are have as much right to the protection firearms as men.
If you disagree:
Make a compelling argument.
Amend the constitution,
THEN and ONLY THEN can you craft the laws you want.
There is no escape clause in the constitution that says “Shall not be infringed” is only a suggestion.
The constitution makes change deliberately difficult – we do not want government that changes in scope and power on a whim or when some emotionally charged historical even distorts our thinking.
John Jay. Well written piece. Independent Bob.
John Say, since we’re on the law, would you please cite the Constitution for a prohibition of secession because Lincoln’s denial was unconstitutional and must have been struck down, and every subsequent act of Lincoln was and remains unconstitutional by extension, including, but not limited to, Karl Marx’s “RECONSTRUCTION” amendments, keeping in mind that West Virginia availed itself of fully constitutional secession in 1861?
Dennis McIntyre, you must be living under a rock. You seem to miss the fact that in Chicago the wild wild exists on every weekend. Do you really think that dem boys are going to give up their guns just because you say pretty please. We have here a story about a woman who saved her life because she had a gun. It seems that you would rather that she was dead. You will sacrifice everything to continue your obsessive contrarian manic disorder. Therapy is available.
TiT,
Dennis is the perfect example of leftist wishful thinking. They ignore reality. As you point out, Chicago is the wild, wild west despite all their gun laws. Laws that criminals do not obey. They are criminals. They use guns to do crime. Leftists think they can just pass morality laws and all bad things would stop. Clearly it does not work. Or Chicago and many other Democrat ran cities would be crime free havens. Just look at the failed state of CA. Democrats decriminalized shoplifting under $900. And shoplifting went up, so much so, companies closed stores, put merchandise behind bars. Anyone with any degree of common sense saw it coming. Same goes for all their gun laws. Only people those laws hurt are law abiding citizens.
” Contrary to the reasoning of the right-wing of the SC in Bruen, there is a long “historical tradition” of gun regulation in this country. I say this from studying my family history in Kansas.”
That is NOT contrary to the reasoning in Bruen it is PRECISELY the reasoning in Bruen.
You are now free to regulate firearms in ways consistent with those the framers of the constitution allowed.
You can use evidence of past regulations – that said 1890 is over 100 years after the drafting and ratification of the constitution.The “Historic Tradition” framerwork in Bruen is merely a restatement of the principle of statutory construction that law and constitution must be read as those who wrote them intended – because we are always free to requite the law or amend the constitution if we do not like that. BTW Both Madison, Jefferson and many founders stated that EXPLICITLY in their writings – though it is both common sense, the only workable means to have laws and government, and a generally applicable rule for reading laws and constitution throughout the west and much of the world with any sound legal tradition.
You use examples from the very late 19th century – that is far outside of the history and tradition of the founders, do you have supreme court cases from that era where these regulations were found constitutional ?
I would not that we do have a legal history and tradition of disarming drunks. Just as we have a legal tradition of preventing people from driving when Drunk. In fact in my state there is a long long list of things that you are barred from doing when drunk.
My point is that the legal tradition is about depriving people who are drunk with the opportunity to behave recklessly – it is NOT specifically about gun violence.
This is a common and stupid mistake made by those on the left = blaming objects not people for bad behavior.
I would separately note that even today – your place of work, stores, bars, etc can all deny you entry if you are armed – should they wish – that is THEIR choice – not yours not that of government. Further YOU are free to chose which businesses you frequent based on their policies regarding guns or shirts and shoes or whatever.
As Coases law of economics states – with a government that enforces strong property rights, and limited friction in free exchange – the free market resolves all this as optimally and efficiently as is possible.
“The right-wing of the SC ignored this long “historical tradition” in Bruen.”
That is FALSE. The behavior in a few places often not even states, and sometimes not even part of the US 100 years after the constitution was ratified is NOT part of the historical traditions preceding and contemporaneous with the ratification of the constitution.
The “historical tradition” language of Bruen was NOT a loophole to evade the 2nd amendment, it was a restatement of the importance of the rules of statutory interpretation – The 2nd Amendment Means Exactly what those who Wrote it Said it means. Not what those a century or two later wish it did.
If you do not like that AS ALWAYS you are free to amend the constitution.
” That’s because it is in the hip pocket of the gun lobby.”
Yes, that would be the approximately 50% of the country that owns guns.
” If you have your way it will be back to the “Wild, Wild West” in large cities like NY, DC and Chicago.”
Dennis, look arround – these places are Already the Wild Wild West – despite your past gun laws.
While the supreme court is supposed to decide what the law and constitution ARE – not what they should be,
one of the significant influences driving Heller, and McDonald and Bruen is that throughout the US the worst violence is the places where guns are most heavily regulated.
Not only are your gun regulations unconstitutional – They have FAILED.
Dennis – automatic weapons did not exist prior to the US Civil War. The courts – including the U*S supreme court have consistently found that automatic weapons can be heavily regulated.
There is no historical tradition of machine gun use prior to the civil war. There is little if any historical evidence of consequential individual machine gun use prior to Prohibition.
Even Justice Thomas would likely uphold strict regulation of automatic weapons.
A divided court recently found Bump Stocks legal – but more as a question of statutory interpretation than constitutionality.
Federal law passed by congress clearly defined an automatic weapon as something that fires more than one bullet for each trigger pull. If the left wishes to ban bump stocks, they must change the law.
Personally I hold no opinion on Bump stocks. On one hand they facilitate automatic firing of an otherwise single shot weapon/ They also are notoriously inaccurate. But I am told that they also assist handicapped people making use of rifles.
This is one for congress to sort out.
John Say wrote: Dennis – automatic weapons did not exist prior to the US Civil War.
The Puckle gun, a much earlier version of the later Gatling gun from Colonial America would care to disagree with that statement. As were privately owned cannons (we now call them “artillery”) that were at times used in the Revolutionary War.
I would not assume that Justice Thomas would be unaware of that history if asked to uphold the current taxation and regulation of automatic firearms. Automatic firearms that were perfectly legal in America until the booze wars of prohibition and the press of the day glamorizing semiautomatic firearms – which did little of the murders of that time.
I would instead wonder if Justice Thomas would decide instead that it is time that SCOTUS take note of what the words “shall not be infringed” mean.
automatic weapons did not exist prior to the US Civil War.
Neither did printers, or computers. Are you suggesting that the first amendment therefore doesn’t protect speech using those tools?! The NFA is unconstitutional and one day SCOTUS will be forced by its own integrity to accept that; unfortunately that day is not here yet.
Dennis an awful lot of Gun Control is being gutted by technology.
The liborator can be made with most 3d printers. A single shot plastic gun that will go through metal detectors and xray machines undetected.
AR-15’s have been 3D printed – though thus far most only last through firing a dozen rounds.
But anyone can buy a CNC for about $1000 that is capable of making a 1911 Colt or an AR-15 lower receiver.
It is my understanding that CNC files for an M16 are also readily available.
Congress and various states have passed laws on this – but who exactly thinks that criminals are going to obey these laws ?
It does not matter how well intentioned a law may appear to be – any law that has no effect on Crime or Criminals but only interferes with otherwise law abiding citizens is inherently stupid.
You’ve given this example before and continue to ignore that the term “historical tradition” refers to the time the amendment was ratified (1791) not a hundred years later. Although we tend to see Wyatt Earp as a “hero” that does not mean what he was doing was Constitutional. I’m will to bet, given your political views it’s likely you can find examples of government actions you consider illegal too.
Dennis McIntyre, police state fascist Soviet Democrat: Jonathan: It appears there is no gun regulation anywhere that, in your view, should be enforced.
When SCOTUS delivered the McDonald decision, telling Dennis and his fellow Soviet Democrat police state fascists running Chicago that they couldn’t prohibit a black American the right to bear arms for his defense against the criminal street thugs they allow to carry arms to prey on others, Dennis McIntyre melted down.
It isn’t the first time Dennis McIntyre has melted down that laws disarming black Americans and legal immigrants have been thrown out.
Dennis has been enraged ever since since the Confederate Democrats slaves were freed – and then the newly formed NRA fought to give them the right to bear arms to defend themselves against Dennis’s Kluxxer Democrat forefathers.
Dennis is enraged that the Sullivan Laws to disarm newly arrived legal immigrants from being preyed on by Democrat street thugs got thrown out.
And then there was Heller, then McDonald, and now of course Bruen.
OMG!!!! THERE’S GONNA BE LEGALLY ARMED BLACK AMERICANS EVERYWHERE IN THE USA!!!!! IT’S A THREAT TO SOVIET DEMOCRAT STREET THUG MOSTLY PEACEFUL RIOTERS AND KLUXXER DEMOCRATS!
No wonder Dennis is terrified…
The Dodge City Council were simply ignoring the constitution, confident that it didn’t apply to them — the courts had not yet accepted the idea that the fourteenth amendment incorporated the most fundamental rights against the states, so cities like Dodge felt free not only to restrict guns but also to ban newspapers and religions, to arrest and convict people without due process, and to seize property without compensation. Thankfully that error has been corrected, and states and cities can no longer get away with such things.
What’s happening! The world has turned upside down! How could it be? CNN, yes that CNN that we all love has done the unspeakable! CNN published an article about all the far left ideas that Kamala Harris said she approves of. I especially enjoyed how she said she was for defunding the police until she became the Vice President and changed her story. CNN even provided links to her statements on a variety of issues. THE WORLD HAS GONE MAD!!! MAD I TELL YOU!!! https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/politics/kfile-kamala-harris-praised-defund-the-police-movement-in-june-2020/index.html
@Thinkitthrough
It has occurred to tinfoil hat me that this could all be theater to insert Hillary or Michelle later on. The building up and tearing down of Kamala could be intentional so one of those two, or both, declares, ‘Don’t want to, but in my nobility, I must.’ This is all scripted as heck and right in line with their MO, in my opinion. I can’t predict the future, but it is all too fishy. Nancy is chums with THOSE folks, not Kamala. I’m still not convinced their game is done.
A great many lemmings would happily follow blindly.
Anyone licensed to carry is already responsible to prevent loss, theft or accidental discharge, regardless of how they carry. Prohibiting carrying in a purse, murse, backpack or anything other than a means attached to the person assumes irresponsibility and is discriminatory.
Olly-that is absolutely correct. You are responsible fore wherever that bullet goes that you fired, whether you intended it to go there or not. Also women are at greater risk. I have not problem with concealed carry in purses.
I completely agree. Off-body carry saved Lynne Russell’s life. Literally. However, if the District of Columbia is going to hang their legal hat on “contemporary New Jersey law”, God help us.
Off-body carry saved Lynne Russell’s life.
Having a naked spouse holding a loaded gun saved her life.
Moral of the story: spouses should be barefoot,
pregnant, and in the kitchennaked and hold a loaded gun.I bet that Trump would like to screengrab that pussy.
Would Joe Biden still be with us in some form if he had assaulted Ms. Russell, instead of Tara Reade?
Wholly ineligible child of foreign citizens, Kamala Harris, was ridin’ that married-man-with-children Brotha Willy Brown for a decade or more.
You have to pay your dues.
1. She is wholly eligible. She was born in the USA, and only kooks and charlatans think her parents’ citizenship is relevant.
2. Brown’s marriage was long over in all but name. This is 2024, nobody gives a **** that they hadn’t yet bothered with the formality of a divorce. It was not adultery, she was not a home wrecker, so its only relevance is that it got her feet on the ladder, after which she climbed it on her own merit. There is no information that she has ever had any other affairs.
An Anonymous Soviet Democrat coward: I bet that Trump would like to screengrab that pussy.
I bet President Daddy-Daughter Inappropriate Sex Showers would like to rape that pussy just like he raped Tara Read
https://nypost.com/2020/05/07/1996-court-doc-confirms-reade-told-of-sexual-harassment-in-bidens-office/
BTW, being an Anonymous Soviet Democrat coward is a deliberate personal choice, not forced on you.
Signed,
Old Airborne Dog
Time to segregate from the lefties. I see zero benefit aside from some old lefty music, in associating with them, zero. They can take linked in, they can take facebook, who cares, the benefits they produce are so massively outweighed by their low trust high regulation mentality borne of their anti-individual/anti-personal responsibility baggage. Seriously, time for a divorce.
Self Defense Matters!!
W Snead
Oro Valley, AZ
It’s only shoe polish until you’re standing in front of the fan.
left CNN in 2001…PRE-WOKE!
The Mayor of DC should have its Security removed also EVERY supreme court judge…then see how they vote!
Democrats prefer you helpless with lots of illegals and criminals
Their leaders prefer gated communities, government funded security and YOUR MONEY
Time to END all Security for public “servants” outside the president.
TAKE AWAY the COP teams protecting hypocrite Congress, Governors, DAs, AGs, police chiefs, judges, etc Either they make society SAFE…or THEY SUFFER….like the poor inner city blacks!
There is NO ONE Hypocrite and Hate Filled than a DEMOCRAT
Seems to me that a purse with a strap attached and looped over the head and with the hanging purse clinging to your side, it would be appropriate to call it “carried on their person” and might even be considered a holster for a women.
Holsters can be detachable with holster and weapon surrendered when you enter certain areas like court’s or other proscribed places. Well, so can a purse. Might even be considered a holster for man purses.
Of course I think any average woman over the age of 12 should be trained in the use of firearms and given a small 6 shot 9 mm handgun as normal every day attire. That would certainly shake up the stalking world. Of course a small 22 magnum would also suffice.
Women here need all the help they can get in personal protection. Even in the restroom, where “transwomen” might be stalking them.
Law enforcement is not what it used to be. When even the Director of the FBI cannot tell when a presidential candidate has been shot by a bullet, then we have trouble.
As an aside I suppose Director Wray did not look at the high speed photos taken of the assassination attempt that showed a bullet streaking by the president’s head, leaving a gray streak contrasting against the sky. No other objects were seen in the photo (taken by a NY Times Pulitzer Prize winning Photographer). Usually shrapnel, from bullets striking other objects, goes in a different direction from the bullet (no shrapnel were seen). Also the ER note said “Bullet Wound to ear” and so did the Dr. treating the president for several days afterword.
Also the bullet streaking by was slightly lower than the upper part of the presidents right ear (the photograph was from the left side of the president’s head) Since the photographer was standing below and to the left of the president’s turned head that would artificially make the bullet look lower (in relation to the president’s head) than a straight on photograph of the president from an equal elevation.
I would think that the FBI could figure that out.
Anyway-power to the ladies, with handguns in their purses.
I wonder if we’re all jumping to the conclusion that purse carry is not on their person carry in this law.
I don’t know, Turldog…
De Caro might be all like ‘…but I’m the one that pulled the heater and I got smoked three times.’
Or… De Caro might be all like “I was able to successfully protect my wife from a dangerous person because she had the foresight to get a CC permit and arm herself, and I would have gladly paid any price for that!”
But sure, let’s go with what you said.
Criticizing the tactic more than the handgun. The way De Caro escalated was hack. The fact Phillips and De Caro hadn’t communicated ahead of time about where the weapon was>>hack amateur….
So yeah, let’s go with what I said. If you’re going to carry, you can’t be tactically stupid.
Wtf do you know about tactics?
Lmao
But we have absolutely no reason to believe that he didn’t know about the weapon and its location. I would be shocked if he didn’t know, just as I always know when and where my wife is carrying, and her, me.
It just sounds like they incredibly came up with a plan in the spur of the moment and then bravely carried it out.
Might they have had a plan in advance? Maybe, but let’s reflect on the wisdom of Mike Tyson. I’m sure you have a plan in mind for if it happens to you, but does your plan start with you coming out of the shower to find your wife has been assaulted and separated from her own weapon. Talk about a punch in the face!
Back to reading facts that are not present into the case.
We do not know if there was prior communication. It is probable that Phillips was merely reminding De Caro of something that had not yet come to HIS mind.
Professor Turley did not write this article concerning gun law.
When 50 to 75 percent of the population is mentally ill what can be done with the 2nd amendment? It wasn’t written for criminals and insane people not to mention drug addicts, pushers and users .
You have no clue what the Second Amendment was written for.
The Second Amendment was written for the Constitution.
Democrats deserve the right to defend themselves, too.
Why stop at limiting the 2nd for the mentally ill/democrats? Why not stop them from voting, too.
What other rights should we all abandon because “50~75%” of the population is mentally ill?
If those percentages were accurate one would have to conclude that mental illness is contagious, and the vector of transmission could only be words. Therefore we should abandon the first amendment.
What about religion? Due process (many of your 50~75% have escaped incarceration by way of due process limits placed on prosecutors.) Should we bring back involuntary institutions to our health system?
I think our founders intended that all of these rights are given by our creator to all men and women.
If 50-70% of people are mentally ill – then by definition they are NOT – they are the norm.
@Anonymous coward
You really have no idea that it’s precisely the mentality of people such as yourself that are driving people into the arms of Trump, do you? Or that the more relentless you become, the more that effect is amplified?
Your lack of self-awareness and understanding of human fundamentals is actually a gift to the rest of us, so thanks. The insanity you espouse leaves little doubt about the choices that need to be made for our future.
Good on her and her husband to stay calm, level thinking in defense of their lives.
I hope she wins her case.
Dear Mr. Turley, who would have been able to guess that someone form a left-wing network would be interested in gun rights? The answer lies in the fact that her own life and that of her husband’s was in danger. And the gun in her purse settled the issue. The elites who cherish the idea of a no second amendment to our constitution, need to come out of their Ivory towers and live with the rest of us who witness crime in our neighborhoods. They, too would be carrying a gun to protect themselves, loved ones or their properties.
Lefties are an odd lot. They cannot learn from hundred or thousands of gun events and generalize it may happen to them. They must actually experience one personally. In the schools, they would be called mentally challenged.
“licensee shall carry any pistol in a holster on their person . . .”
You’re a woman in D.C., going out for the evening in a form-fitting black dress.
Where, pray tell, are you going to wear a holster?
Or does the Left want you to wear a potato sack so you can hide your thigh holster?
The left loathe self-defense and want to criminalize it.
As a 70+ year old woman who carries in a special gun carry purse, I pray she succeeds!
Same here, sister.