| Opinion/The Review

Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Palmer v. District of Columbia: Upholding the 2nd Amendment

Email Newsletters

Sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Daily Photo Galleries

Monday, July 28, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

Government cannot pass laws, then place into practice rules, that effectively ban a constitutional right. That's the upshot of a ruling released late Saturday in a long-running Second Amendment case out of Washington, D.C.

A lawsuit filed years ago challenged the District of Columbia's ban on carrying handguns outside the home. U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. of New York, appointed to hear the case, Palmer v. District of Columbia, by Chief Justice John Roberts, found the right to a handgun cannot be proscribed in the fashion that D.C. did — requiring handgun owners to have a permit to carry but then issuing no permits.

Heavily relying on prior appellate court rulings, Judge Scullin said “there is no longer any basis on which this court can conclude that the District of Columbia's total ban on public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny.”

But as with Heller, the landmark 2008 ruling that affirmed the right of individuals to bear arms, Palmer does not preclude district lawmakers from adopting “a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards.” Past being prologue, however, D.C.'s proclivity for disingenuous and indecipherable gun laws could make any “remedy” worse.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.



Show commenting policy

Most-Read Editorials

  1. Economics ignorance: We must do better
  2. Amnesty’s end run: What rule of law?
  3. Cyber insecurity: The feds fail to protect the public’s data
  4. U.N. Watch: Iranian showdown
  5. Charter school pablum: Hillary Clinton misleads on education
  6. The Thursday wrap
  7. Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
  8. Saturday essay: Prelude to thanks
  9. Sunday pops
  10. Greensburg Laurels & Lances
  11. Uber’s fine: The insidious PUC