http://saf.org/legal.action/dc.carry.lawsuit/dc_carry_complaint_09.pdfThe District of Columbia retains the ability to regulate the manner of carrying handguns, prohibit the carrying of handguns in specific, narrowly defined sensitive places,
prohibit the carrying of arms that are not within the scope of Second Amendment protection, and disqualify specific, particularly dangerous individuals from carrying handguns.
This is how Gura wins cases. Keep the point narrow to avoid a ruling "off issue". Right away he concedes that DC can retain the right to prohibit carry in certain locations, carry arms not protected by the 2nd (aka Miller, sawed off shotgun), and prohibit carry by felons.
Likely DC usual tactic of FUD falls flat here. "This will allow felons, and mentall ill to carry automatic weapons into daycare centers and the city will be powerless to stop it".
The District of Columbia may not completely ban the carrying of handguns for self-defense, deny individuals the right to carry handguns in non-sensitive places, deprive individuals of the right to carry handguns in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or impose regulations on the right to carry handguns that are inconsistent with the Second Amendment.
By requiring a permit to carry a handgun in public, yet refusing to issue such
permits and refusing to allow the possession of any handgun that would be carried in public, Defendants maintain a complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public by almost all individuals.
Nicely sets up that a complete ban exists.
Defendants’ laws, customs, practices and policies generally banning the carrying of handguns in public violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, facially and as applied against the individual plaintiffs in this action, damaging plaintiffs in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to permanent injunctive relief against such customs, policies, and practices.
Defendants’ laws, customs, practices and policies generally refusing the registration of firearms by individuals who live outside the District of Columbia violate the rights to travel and equal protection secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, facially and as applied against the individual plaintiffs in this action, damaging plaintiffs in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to permanent injunctive relief against such customs, policies, and practices.
Nice one. Two avenues. 2nd and 5th.
Alan Gura (D.C. Bar No. 453449)
Gura & Possessky, PLLC
101 N. Columbus Street, Suite 405
Alexandria, VA 22314
703.835.9085/Fax 703.997.7665
Lastly nice to see Alan Gura is the lead counsel
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
