[RugerGirl]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/...itutional/

A federal judge in the District of Columbia on Saturday overturned the city’s total ban on residents being allowing to carry firearms outside their home in a landmark decision for gun-rights activists.

Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. wrote in his ruling in Palmer v. District of Columbia that the right to bear arms extends outside the home, therefore gun-control laws in the nation’s capital are "unconstitutional".

“We won,” Alan Gura, the lead attorney for the Second Amendment Foundation, told Fox News in a phone interview. “I’m very pleased with the decision that the city can’t forbid the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right."

Gura said he expects the District to appeal this decision but added, “We’ll be happy to keep the fight going.”

The decision leaves no gray area in gun-carrying rights.

[Emptymag]

Holy crap.

[Mr_Gixxer]

So, is this constitutional carry?

[RugerGirl]

So, is this constitutional carry?

No, it kind of sounds like now they have to come up with some sort of permit law, per the end of the article.

[Mr_Gixxer]

So, is this constitutional carry?

No, it kind of sounds like now they have to come up with some sort of permit law, per the end of the article.

Ok, I see it now, but this quote has me wondering.

The court ordered the city to now allow residents from the District and other states to carry weapon within its boundaries.

Does this change the rules for all federal property?

[ExcelToExcel]

No, it kind of sounds like now they have to come up with some sort of permit law, per the end of the article.

Ok, I see it now, but this quote has me wondering.

The court ordered the city to now allow residents from the District and other states to carry weapon within its boundaries.

Does this change the rules for all federal property?

Wait what?

The court ordered the city to now allow residents from the District and other states to carry weapon within its boundaries.

That quote says they CANNOT allow people to carry?

I think it means they must allow residents from the District and other states to carry weapon which means... drumroll... Country wide reciprocity or must allow out of state licenses!

Ahhhhhh the sweetness of unintended consequences catching up with the antis!


I bet the supreme court of the US won't even take on the appeal!

Sorry it says NOW not not. ..


This is my favorite...

The court ordered the city to now allow residents from the District and other states to carry weapon within its boundaries.

Judge Scullin wrote that the court “enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitationsof [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.”

I think that means until they get something on the books we can all carry in D.C. lets go to the mall open carry now.... LOL.. That would be an interesting situation and one I might actually consider if it really means what I think it means. WOW. An open carry march on D.C.

[Dave]

Damn Obama!

[RugerGirl]

An open carry March on a DC would be as dumb as the Texas OCers.....this ruling still has to go through appeals....let's not ruin it for everyone.

Although I was just there....except wouldn't have done me any good....can't carry in the Smithsonian.

[ExcelToExcel]

An open carry March on a DC would be as dumb as the Texas OCers.....this ruling still has to go through appeals....let's not ruin it for everyone.

Although I was just there....except wouldn't have done me any good....can't carry in the Smithsonian.

It ain't going anywhere. It won't be heard.

[ArcticSplash]

This doesn't apply to Federal buildings and property, just the city. DC has home rule.

I wonder though... the National Mall is not under DC Council control, but Federal. Seems like that's the prize (an open carry march on the Mall).