Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Although this story pertains to the laws of Washington, DC - I thought it would apply to the Virginia area of the forum moreso than the National area.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... in-public/

The man whose Supreme Court challenge secured the right of D.C. residents to keep guns in their homes is back in court, this time filing a lawsuit on behalf of a group seeking the right of registered gun owners to carry their guns in public.

Four individuals and a gun-rights advocacy group joined lawyer Alan Gura on Thursday in filing the lawsuit in U.S. District Court. It was an earlier lawsuit by Mr. Gura that forced the District to end its 30-year-old gun ban, the strictest in the United States.

The lawsuit argues that the District's "laws, customs, practices and policies generally banning the carrying of handguns in public violate the Second Amendment" of the U.S. Constitution. It asks that the District issue licenses to carry guns in public to legal gun owners in the city and to people with valid carry permits from outside the city.

"This lawsuit was inevitable in many ways," Mr. Gura said Thursday, adding that most jurisdictions in the country have carry laws. "This is not the end of all gun control."

Mr. Gura said the lawsuit does not take a position on whether the District should allow legal gun owners to carry weapons openly or in a concealed manner. That issue, he said, should be left to city officials to regulate.

The D.C. residents who brought the case are Tom G. Palmer, George Lyon and Amy McVey. The nonprofit Washington state-based Second Amendment Foundation is also named as a plaintiff.

The three D.C. residents, who are licensed gun owners in the District, had gun-registration applications rejected by the Metropolitan Police Department because they stated their intention was to carry the loaded guns on their person outside their homes.

"My right to self-defense shouldn't stop at my front door," said Mrs. McVey, 46, of Northwest Washington. Mrs. McVey in July became the first person to register a handgun in the District after the ban was lifted.

Asked where she might carry her gun, Mrs. McVey responded: "Everywhere it's legal."

Edward Raymond, a Navy veteran enrolled in law school in New Hampshire, is also listed as a plaintiff.

Mr. Raymond, who is not a D.C. resident, was stopped for speeding in the District in April 2007 while he was transporting a gun for which he had permits in Maryland and Florida. He was charged with carrying a pistol without a license and pleaded guilty to misdemeanor unregistered gun and unregistered ammunition charges.

He sought a license that would allow him to transport his gun through the District but was refused.

D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson, chairman of the Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, had not seen the lawsuit but said he disagrees with the basic premise.

"Mr. Gura is treading uncharted ground claiming that the Second Amendment offers the right to carry," he said.

Mr. Mendelson said the District's role as home to the president, Congress and the diplomatic corps should be reason enough not to allow carrying.

"In the nation's capital, carrying is perhaps the greatest concern to law enforcement because it makes it very hard for law enforcement to distinguish between a person who is carrying a firearm legally and a potential assassin," he said.

The Supreme Court ruled in June 2008 that the city's near-total ban on handguns was unconstitutional and that residents should be allowed to keep guns in their homes for personal protection.

City officials began rewriting the laws immediately after the decision. The new laws still forbid semiautomatic and other high-powered weapons.

Mr. Gura filed another lawsuit in March, arguing that a roster of handguns deemed acceptable for registration was restrictive. The lawsuit was dropped when the D.C. government in June expanded its list of guns that residents could seek to register.

Unregistered ammunition ?

I've made comments about DC before and people ask why it upsets me, since it doesn't apply to me - well articles like this just make it completely clear why it upsets me.

I've attached a recent "Firearms Registration" document for DC - read the entire document, but here's the section pertaining to ammunition:

VII. Possession of Ammunition and Sale
1. No person shall possess ammunition within the District unless:
A. He is a licensed dealer.
B. He is a holder of a valid registration certificate for a firearm of the same
gauge or caliber as the ammunition he possesses.
C. He holds an ammunition collector's certificate as of September 24, 1976.

(oops - couldn't upload it, it's too big - find the .PDF file here)

So unless anyone here has a DC permit to own a firearm, and you're carrying that caliber ammo - it's all "unregistered" when you drive through DC.

And lets not forget:

"In the nation's capital, carrying is perhaps the greatest concern to law enforcement because it makes it very hard for law enforcement to distinguish between a person who is carrying a firearm legally and a potential assassin," he [Phil Mendelson] said.

Because everyone who's a potential assassin will make sure they get pulled over for speeding, will comply with all the laws, and will obviously be open carrying as to draw suspicion from law enforcement...duh.

"Mr. Gura is treading uncharted ground claiming that the Second Amendment offers the right to carry," he said.

Duh!

How can you own a weapon without carrying it?

This is one big game of FIZBIN. Except on Tuesdays.

I think most gun owners in DC thought that the Heller decision was the end of their fight to exercise their Second Amendment rights. But, in fact, it's just the beginning if the gun owner wishes to leave his / her house with a licensed firearm. This will probably result in a new case for the SCOTUS to rule on some time in the future. Based on our newest Justice's well known opinion of the Second Amendment, I don't see the decision being in favor of gun owners.

Bobtail1911 wrote:

"Mr. Gura is treading uncharted ground claiming that the Second Amendment offers the right to carry," he said.

Duh!

How can you own a weapon without carrying it?

This is one big game of FIZBIN. Except on Tuesdays.

Live long and prosper

[quote="allingeneral"]
D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson, chairman of the Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, had not seen the lawsuit but said he disagrees with the basic premise.

"Mr. Gura is treading uncharted ground claiming that the Second Amendment offers the right to carry," he said.

Mr. Mendelson said the District's role as home to the president, Congress and the diplomatic corps should be reason enough not to allow carrying.

"In the nation's capital, carrying is perhaps the greatest concern to law enforcement because it makes it very hard for law enforcement to distinguish between a person who is carrying a firearm legally and a potential assassin," he said.quote]

Correct me if i am wrong, but when the city was under Federal control, weren't guns legal in D.C. and only after home rule were they banned?

WRW wrote:Correct me if i am wrong, but when the city was under Federal control, weren't guns legal in D.C. and only after home rule were they banned?

They were legal until sometime in 1976. I can't give you the whole rundown on it then, I wasn't old enough to give a crap about D.C. at all. What I curious about is why did this guy plead guilty to a misdemeanor when the FOPA should have protected him? Something doesn't seem kosher about this.

... quick down and dirty.

Hostage situation in B'nai B'nai faciltiy, at-then Council-Member Marion Barry taken hostage with other folks. Barry was shot (gut) soon after legislation to ban handguns in WashDC; stood for 30+years to USSC over-ruled.

jadedone4 wrote:... quick down and dirty.

Hostage situation in B'nai B'nai faciltiy, at-then Council-Member Marion Barry taken hostage with other folks. Barry was shot (gut) soon after legislation to ban handguns in WashDC; stood for 30+years to USSC over-ruled.

I remember that...some relation to Lew Alcindor if I recall.

My point with my question was that the Feds didn't feel the need for protection from assassins but the new city govt. felt, and still feels, the need to protect Federal persons. At least, that is their best excuse for their laws.

jadedone4 wrote:... quick down and dirty.

Hostage situation in B'nai B'nai faciltiy, at-then Council-Member Marion Barry taken hostage with other folks. Barry was shot (gut) soon after legislation to ban handguns in WashDC; stood for 30+years to USSC over-ruled.

That certainly explains alot. Now I can understand why he turned to a life of crime. Now to make an intuitive leap. Most of the citizens vote for him and he keeps getting re-elected, hence they too must be criminals. Everyone knows DC is the murder capitol of the world, ooops - my mistake - that now belongs to Chicago. Also, lets not forget about the WH, DOJ, BATFE, and congress.

Anyway, since most of them are either criminals or criminals by association perhaps guns should be banned there. To take it a step further, we should put a 12' electrified fence around the whole place and hang up signs -

allingeneral wrote:Mr. Raymond, who is not a D.C. resident, was stopped for speeding in the District in April 2007 while he was transporting a gun for which he had permits in Maryland and Florida... He was charged with carrying a pistol without a license and pleaded guilty to misdemeanor unregistered gun and unregistered ammunition charges.
He sought a license that would allow him to transport his gun through the District but was refused.

If you go to the NRA/ILA website, it has a map of the states that you can click on to look at gun laws for the states. DC is also listed. http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/#?st=DCI thought one note on the DC page was interesting, concerning non-resident transport through DC. This was updated April 2008:
NONRESIDENTS
Nonresidents are prohibited (subject to the recreational activity exception) from carrying or possessing a firearm
while traveling through the District unless the gun has been registered with the Metropolitan Police.
NOTE: As a practical matter, the police have advised that they will not interfere with nonresidents passing through
the District with a firearm, providing the person does not stop, and the firearm is unloaded, securely wrapped and
carried in the trunk.
I guess that this means that they won't do traffic stops specifically looking for weapons, but don't speed or get a flat tire.

Parry

So if Mr Raymond was stopped for speeding how did they know he had a weapon? Did they ask or search his car? Did he consent to search or simply tell them he had a weapon? I'm curious. Anyone know?

zephyp wrote:So if Mr Raymond was stopped for speeding how did they know he had a weapon? Did they ask or search his car? Did he consent to search or simply tell them he had a weapon? I'm curious. Anyone know?

Not sure how they knew, but I did find this, from the complaint filed by the lawyer:
On April 6, 2007, Plaintiff Raymond was stopped by District of Columbia Police
for allegedly speeding. Although Raymond was never charged with a traffic violation, he was
charged with carrying a pistol without a license because his loaded handgun was located in his
car’s center console. At the time, Raymond held valid permits to carry a handgun issued by the
states of Maryland and Florida, and he still holds those permits.
Raymond subsequently pled guilty to misdemeanor possession of an unregistered
firearm and unregistered ammunition. He successfully completed a sentence of probation.
On June 26, 2009, Plaintiff Edward Raymond sought to register a handgun in the
District of Columbia. He was refused an application form on account of his lack of residence in
the District.

Still not sure how police knew that his gun was in the console.

Parry

Maybe they saw it when he opened the console to retrieve his registration.

To me this Raymond and his getting caught with a gun has no bearing on the lawsuit, I don't know why they even allowed him to join in. He would have been covered if he had followed the provisions of the Firearms Owners Protection Act. Having had his guns registered in D.C. would not have helped him and I doubt it would have made any difference when he got stopped for speeding. How the LEO found he had a gun is anyone's guess, he may have had it openly visible in the console. Fact is that D.C. LEO could have hammered him with much worse than he got. I suspect his misdemeanor charges of unregistered gun and ammunition were plea bargains.

As for D.C.'s firearms law concerning nonresidents- "NONRESIDENTS
Nonresidents are prohibited (subject to the recreational activity exception) from carrying or possessing a firearm while traveling through the District unless the gun has been registered with the Metropolitan Police.
NOTE: As a practical matter, the police have advised that they will not interfere with nonresidents passing through the District with a firearm, providing the person does not stop, and the firearm is unloaded, securely wrapped and carried in the trunk."

they (along with a few other cities/states) need to understand what this means- "Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console." (US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 44, Section 926A)

I think he's part of the suit because because he's not a resident of DC, but does have a permit from somewhere else (Maryland).

The lawsuit argues that the District's "laws, customs, practices and policies generally banning the carrying of handguns in public violate the Second Amendment" of the U.S. Constitution. It asks that the District issue licenses to carry guns in public to legal gun owners in the city and to people with valid carry permits from outside the city.

I know Maryland has different levels of permits for different uses, but I believe it's pretty difficult to get a Maryland permit. If he is in the suit because of the "outside the city" part, the fact that he has a permit from a restrictive state may add something.

Parry

What bothers me about him joining the suit is that just because you have a permit issued by one state, it doesn't mean you can carry a firearm in another state. Why would there be any standing for him to join in? It's like trying to force a state to recognize another state's permits, which I suspect is what they are trying to do.

I don't think having a MD permit would add anything to the case.

MAYBE we should ALL sign on as plaintiffs... clog up the works and show 'em we stick together... FILABUSTER!

Sorry for the delayed response to this discussion, I am just coming across the post. Speaking from the horses mouth, I am Edward Raymond and one of the plaintiffs in Palmer v. DC, I would say that your concern about how the District was able to discover my firearm is a good point. First of all, I was not speeding in the District of Columbia and I was profiled by the Metropolitan Police. Second, I am a black male driving a luxury vehicle who inadvertently traveled on a DC street looking for a Maryland address along the MD/DC border. I was profiled by the District Police, pulled over and my vehicle was searched without my consent. Unfortunate for me, I had not completed law school at this time, but now after graduating with my law degree and LLM, my constitutional rights were clearly out the window on that night. As a black male, my vehicle and I, created a suspicion of illegal activity and the officers were doing their "duty" to use their hunch to find criminal activity. As law abiding citizen who obtained a firearm permit for business reasons and being a victim of past crimes, it was baffling how I, in a business suit at the time of my arrest, aroused probable cause to initiate a search of my vehicle for contraband. My being in possession of carry permits was essentially contraband. My permits came into the discussion when officers interrogated me as to whether there were any contraband or weapons in the vehicle. Being the cooperative and law abiding citizen that I am, I merely stated that I had a concealed weapon permit. I am involved with the pending DC constitutional challenge (and a civil lawsuit for damages) because I strongly believe that I should not have been subject to the criminal charges and civil forfeiture of my brand new vehicle for exercising a fundamental right enumerated in the 2nd Amendment to 'keep and bear arms".