District court rules that a total ban on carrying firearms in public is unconstitutional. And in Washington DC of all places. 

http://alangura.com/2014/07/victory-in-palmer-v-d-c/

 

Based on the wording of the decision, it appears that Washington D.C. now has "Constitutional Carry" for non-residents. Dr. Lott appears to agree with that assessment, but I would like to see some of the lawyers weigh in....

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/07/copy-of-federal-district-court-decision-striking-down-dcs-ban-on-concealed-handguns/

Reading the decision I was surprised by how many references there were to Peruta as a basis for their reasoning in reaching the decision they did, perhaps even more than to Heller, McDonald, and Moore v. Madigan. I'm wondering if this will have any impact on the Ninth Circuit deciding Peruta one way or the other (such as one or maybe even several judges asking the laggards to get with the program before it's too late for SCOTUS to take up a possible appeal in the fall session... though that delay and missed opportunity for appeal until another year goes by could be the goal of the laggards), and what the consequences will be for the D.C. decision should Peruta be overturned en banc and/or stayed and appealed to SCOTUS.

Awesome.

Granted a stay to the District allowing them 90 days to either appeal or write a Constitutional law to replace the unconstitutional one. In the meantime, business as usual... no legally-armed civilians.

"As restrictive as possible." No surprise there, as D.C. will craft a law re CCW that skirts as close to unconstitutional as they can get away with, which, given the Circuit, would be unconstitutional in several other circuits. Should Hawaii ever be compelled (via Peruta and Baker being upheld) to create another version of the CCW law, we can likely expect the same here. Unfortunately. 

From Roll Call (http://blogs.rollcall.com/hill-blotter/d-c-officials-plotting-new-course-to-keep-gun-control-intact/?dcz=):

Though they won’t yet say how far they are willing to take their fight, District of Columbia officials plan to do everything in their power to limit the carrying of handguns in the nation’s capital, arguing that despite a court’s ruling that paves the way for more permissive laws, Washington is a unique place with heightened security concerns.

“An absolute ban on [carrying handguns] may not pass constitutional muster regardless of the judge, so we’re going to prepare by working on legislation that will pass muster” said Tommy Wells, a Democrat who represents Capitol Hill on the D.C. Council.

[ . . . ]

“We have to have a smart bill ready to go, and we can’t be in denial about this,” Wells said in a Wednesday interview. He offered Maryland’s permit law as an example. Last year, a federal appeals court ruled that the state can require people applying for concealed-carry handgun permits to provide a “good and substantial reason” reason for wanting to carry.

“As restrictive as possible,” is the suggestion of D.C. Councilmember David Catania, a Republican-turned-independent who is running for mayor. He said the implications of the ruling are “very, very concerning.”