WOW

John Lott has news:

Federal District Court decision striking down DC’s ban on concealed handguns: Copy and analysis

A copy of the decision is available here.

Effective immediately – since DC has no other laws in effect concerning carrying a firearm except the one just struck down – DC is legally a Constitutional Carry area for non-residents at this time. Non-residents will be able to legally carry in DC under the same rules that we currently see in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Wyoming, Vermont, and 99.4% of Montana. Residents appear to still be required to have a legally registered gun, though once they have that they will be able to carry without any additional license.
Obviously, government will ask for a stay on Monday, but with all the other states allowing concealed carry, it will be somewhat hard to argue that DC will suffer irreparable harm.

As the court noted in Peruta, “[t]he Second Amendment secures the right not only to ‘keep’ arms but also to ‘bear’ them[,]” Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1151; and, as the Supreme Court explained in Heller, “[a]t the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry[,]‘” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584. “Yet, not ‘carry’ in the ordinary sense of ‘convey[ing] or transport[ing]‘ an object, as one might carry groceries to the check-out counter or garments to the laundromat, but ‘carry for a particular purpose confrontation.’” Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1151-52 (quoting [Heller, 554 U.S. at 584]). According to the Heller majority, the “natural meaning of ‘bear arms’” was the one that Justice Ginsburg provided in her dissent in Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125 (1998), that is “‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584 (quoting Muscarello, 524 U.S. at 143, 118 S. Ct. 1911) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)).

Furthermore, “‘bearing a weapon inside the home’ does not exhaust this definition of ‘carry.’ For one thing, the very risk occasioning such carriage, ‘confrontation,’ is ‘not limited to the home.’” Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1152 (quoting Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 936 (7th Cir. 2012)). . . .

 So, DC is now as free as Vermont. Still, I wouldn't want to be the test case. The police still will "enforce" what they consider to be "the law" until soundly slapped down in court, and anyone open carrying in a place like our nation's Capitol is literally begging for either a mugging or a tune-up by the cops...