A challenge to Washington D.C.’s off-body carry law was filed in mid-2024. The lawsuit calls into question the District’s prohibition on law-abiding permit holders not being allowed to engage in off-body carry. A recent filing was made in Russell et.al. v. District of Columbia et.al. The filing is a request to the court, with the plaintiffs seeking a summary judgement on their facial challenge to the District’s ban.
Advertisement
The section of D.C.’s law that’s being challenged is D.C. Municipal Regulation § 24-2344.1 and § 24-2344.2, which state the following:
2344.1A licensee shall carry any pistol in a manner that it is entirely hidden from view of the public when carried on or about a person, or when in a vehicle in such a way as it is entirely hidden from view of the public.
2344.2A licensee shall carry any pistol in a holster on their person in a firmly secure manner that is reasonably designed to prevent loss, theft, or accidental discharge of the pistol.
With these regulations in place, folks who are in lawful possession of their arms and have the appropriate carry permit, can be subject to arrest if their firearm is not on their person. The only other jurisdiction in the country that has a law that’s similar to this is New Jersey. And even New Jersey’s provision seemingly allows off-body carry as long as the bag or item housing a properly holstered firearm is on one’s person. D.C. has an outright ban.
The memorandum seeking a partial summary judgement states:
Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that DCMR § 24.2344.2 on its face and as applied to limit the off body carry of a holstered firearm is contrary to the history and tradition of firearms regulation in this Nation and is therefore unconstitutional. Plaintiffs likewise request the Court to issue a permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of DCMR § 24.2344.2. Plaintiffs also seek damages against the District, which claim is not at issue in this summary judgment motion.
Advertisement
The filing also further points out real injury claims from some of the plaintiffs. “MPD previously arrested Plaintiff Beck inter alia for allegedly improperly carrying his holstered handgun in a sling bag, despite that it was attached to his body with a strap,” the document stated. “And MPD sought to revoke his CPL.”
This isn’t a situation of speculative subversion of rights. People have been arrested by the Metro Police Department for not being fully in compliance with the regulation. The court is not going to be able to say there’s no injury claim here – even though the regulation is an infringement to the Second Amendment regardless of an injured party.
The simplest question the District should be forced to answer would be, at the time of the founding, would George Washington be permitted to carry a loaded firearm in a saddlebag? The answer to that question is obvious.
Russell et.al. is being litigated by George L. Lyon, Jr., from Arsenal Attorneys, with his partner, Matthew J. Bergstrom. How the court is going to view their filing is not known. The District has a large buren to meet in order to claim their regulation is constitutional. We’ll be watching this case closely and hopefully be able to report back with some good news in the future.
Advertisement
