Today, July 26, 2014, the District Court of the District of Columbia has overturned the DC's ban on the carrying of firearms in public. An excerpt from the case, Palmer v. DC, follows and the full opinion can be downloaded from the link below this blog entry.

In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia's total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny. Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia's complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional. Accordingly . . . the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) 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. Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District.

Arsenal Attorneys will continue monitoring developments closely. Watch for an order staying this decision while an appeal proceeds. Our firm maintains an office in Washington, DC and we have DC-licensed attorneys ready to advise clients about these matters. Arsenal Attorneys' main office is located in Fairfax, Virginia beside NRA headquarters. We serve clients in nearly 40 states, and we are particularly known for our Arsenal Gun Trust, which is a solution for owning NFA firearms (e.g. suppressors and short barrels) and for estate planning for gun collections. 

The District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department has issued formal, written guidance to its officers entitled "Impact of Palmer v. District of Columbia on Firearms Enforcement" dated July 27, 2014. Below is an excerpt of that guidance, which was signed by Chief of Police Cathy L. Lanier. A copy of the original guidance can be downloaded from a link at the bottom of this blog entry. All of the following text is taken directly from the DCMPD document, and it does not constitute legal advice from our law firm. Please note, no such guidance was necessarily provided to the other law enforcement authorities exercising jurisdiction in various areas of the District, including the US Park Police and the US Capitol Police, among others. Our law firm includes attorneys licensed in the District of Columbia, where we also maintain an office. We welcome prospective clients to contact us with their questions.

Immediate impact of Palmer v. District of Columbia on Firearms Enforcement

Effective immediately, pursuant to the decision in Palmer v. District of Columbia issued on July 26, 2014, and the directive of the Attorney General o fthe District of Columbia, members of the Metropolitan Police Department shall not enforce D.C. Official Code §22-4504(a) until further notice.

D.C. Official Code §22-4504(a)

D.C. Official Code §22-4504(a) No person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so concealed.

Residents of the District in possession of an unregistered firearm may be charged with Unregistered Firearm and, if applicable, Unregistered Ammunition if they do not also reside in a jurisdiction where they could legally possess the firearm. At this time, individuals who do not live in the District shall not be charged with either unregistered firearm or unregistered ammunition, but other charges may apply.

There is no change to any other criminal charges, such as Unlawful Possession of Firearms (§22-4503) (which, among other things, prohibits possession by felons, fugitives from justice, and anyone under a CPO requiring them to relinquish firearms0, and Possession of a Firearm while Committing a Crime of Violence, or a Dangerous Crime (§22-4502).

Scenarios

You stop a man on the street carrying a firearm and: 

Scenario 1: The man says he is a resident of the District, but the gun is unregistered.

• You should charge him with Unregistered Firearm. 

Scenario 2: The man lives in Vermont, which does not require a license or permit for either open or concealed carry of a handgun.You run his name, and no criminal record is apparent.

• You should record any relevant information for potential further investigation, and he is free to leave.

Scenario 3: The man lives in Virginia, where no license or permit is required to openly carry a handgun. However, when you run his name, records indicate that is a convicted felon.

• Under District and federal law, felons may not legally possess a firearm. You should arrest him for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm (§22-4503).

D.C. Official Code §7-2502.02(a)(4)

In addition, members of the Firearms Registration Section are prohibited from refusing registration of handguns solely on the basis that the objective of the applicant is to carry the handgun in public for self-defense.

The District of Columbia has filed a motion to stay the Palmer v. District of Columbia ruling. For an analysis of this late breaking news, see this report by Fox News DC. These events will continue to be fluid for the next hours and even months as such motions and appeals are filed. 

For those who missed the recent announcement, the District Court of the District of Columbia stayed its decision in Palmer v. District of Columbia. That decision struck down DC's restrictions on carrying firearms in public. Several days later the same court and presiding judge, the Honorable Frederick J. Scullin Jr., issued a 90-day stay to allow the District of Columbia to enact a law regulating the issuance of permits to carry firearms in public. For more details, see this story. 

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) announced it has slashed the backlog of applications for NFA firearms by 30%. Firearms regulated by the NFA, or National Firearms Act, include silencers, vintage machine guns, and short barrel rifles and shotguns. In recent years the increased interest in these firearms resulted in a backlog for ATF as they processed the registration and tax payment for each firearm. Consequently ATF often took 12 or so months to issue a tax stamp for each NFA firearm. Now an increase in personnel, along with a budget for over time and a 7 day work week, has reduced the backlog from 81,000 to 56,000 pending applications. This means ATF is processing more applications than they are receiving--something they have not accomplished since 2009. 

Already Arsenal Attorneys' clients have experienced faster processing of their tax stamps. Instead of waiting 12 months, 8-9 months is becoming more common, and many expect 6 months to become the new normal in the near future.  Our sources claim ATF's goal is to issue tax stamps within 4 months.

These these estimates, however, concern paper applications. ATF eFile is an even faster option exists is available to those using a solution like our Arsenal Gun Trust. This online system recently issued tax stamps in 90 days, but it was recently shut down for repairs. Since the partial relaunch in June, some tax stamps are being issued in 30 days or less. To reiterate, the faster eFile system is available only to those using a legal entity like the Arsenal Gun Trust. Currently eFile accepts applications to build an NFA firearm. ATF estimates they eFile will accept applications for transfers in the coming months.

The Washington Times featured Arsenal Attorneys' Managing Attorney Matthew Bergstrom in its story on the lastest ATF proposal for an executive order which would create new regulations concerning firearms lost during shipment between gun dealers. ATF had previously abandoned a similar proposal in 2000. You can find the story here. 

This latest proposal from ATF follows a recent pattern of proposing new regulations with limited information provided to the public concerning ATF's data or analysis. Furthermore, the cost of these regulations to gun dealers, gun owners, and tax payers has received little attention. The public has been given only 30 days to provide their comments to the proposal.