Palmer v. District of Columbia
59 F. Supp. 3d 173
| D.D.C. | 2014Background
- Plaintiffs allege DC’s permit regime and residency-based limits ban public handgun carry in violation of the Second Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §1983.
- DC law requires handgun registration; non-residents may register only for home defense, with residency proofs required for applications.
- DC disabled carry licenses after the Police Chief’s authority was repealed; no current mechanism to issue handgun carry licenses.
- Plaintiffs Palmer, Lyon, Raymond, and McVey would carry handguns for self-defense but refrain due to lack of permits; several applications denied for non-residency, with some approvals only for home defense.
- SAF asserts its members’ interests in bearing arms and resources spent opposing DC restrictions.
- Court applies Heller/McDonald framework to assess whether a public-carry ban is constitutional and grants summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is DC’s total ban on carrying handguns in public constitutional under the Second Amendment? | Palmer argues the ban infringes the right to bear arms outside the home. | DC contends the ban is a permissible regulation under traditional restrictions. | Unconstitutional; ban struck down. |
| Do residency-based restrictions on handgun registration/carry violate travel or equal protection rights? | Raymond and SAF contend residency rules unlawfully burden travel/equality. | DC argues restrictions are rational regulations tied to residency. | Claims not ripe and co-extensive with Second Amendment challenge; not resolved on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognizes an individual right to bear arms for self-defense within historical limits)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (U.S. 2010) (applies Second Amendment to state/local governments via incorporation)
- Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2014) (two-step approach to whether outside-home carry falls within Second Amendment rights; right to carry outside the home is supported by text/history)
- Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012) (blanket prohibition on carrying in public requires strong justification; bans of public carriage are generally unconstitutional)
- Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426 (3d Cir. 2013) (recognizes some application of Second Amendment outside the home; permits traditional restrictions)
- Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013) (assumes right to carry outside the home exists; discusses regulatory scheme)