Unlike section 12031, the District of Columbia law did not contain, and the Supreme Court declined to infer, an exception for self-defense. Id. The Heller Court did not reach the question of whether the law would have been constitutional had there been an exception for self-defense. See id. As a consequence, the Court declines to assume that section 12031 places an unlawful burden on the right to carry a firearm for self-defense.
Irma E. Gonzalez
December 10, 2010
United States District Court Southern District of California
Case 09CV2371-IEG (BGS), Order (1) Denying plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, and (2) Granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment
Page 8, lines 18-22.
[Sebastian also has a post on the topic as does John Richardson.
I’m reminded of Aesop’s fable of the fox and the grapes—with a twist.
The Brady Campaign is quite pleased with this order because it says concealed carry is not a guaranteed right. But what they don’t mention is that the reason given by the judge that it doesn’t infringe is that an exemption exists for open carry. While the courts don’t always rule consistently this does imply that some sort of public carry is believed to constitutionally protected. Hence the Brady Campaign may be crowing about how sweet the grapes are because concealed carry restrictions are upheld while open carry becomes a guaranteed right beyond their reach.—Joe]