In response to a July ruling by U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. that declared D.C.’s ban on firearms unconstitutional, the Council of the District of Columbia passed emergency legislation last month that allows gun owners in the District to apply for permits to carry concealed weapons. Modeled after similar laws deployed in New York, New Jersey, and Maryland, the new law mandates applicants to demonstrate that they require a firearm for self-defense against a specific danger. In a reasoned response to incidents like the Sandy Hook Elementary and Aurora, Col. theater shootings, the legislation prevents individuals with a documented history of mental illness to receive a permit and prohibits carrying concealed weapons on public transportation and within government buildings, school zones, day-care facilities, and taverns.
Though passed unanimously, the new legislation was essentially a winless response to the sudden invalidation of the District’s former ban, which left the Council scrambling to fill the void. According to Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, the District must face the fact that, constitutionally, it cannot eliminate guns—only seek to minimize their misuse. By overturning D.C.’s original ban, however, the ruling has removed one of the staunchest urban examples of gun control and has also created a dangerous legal precedent.
The ruling reflects a wider trend in the legal battle to respond to gun violence, whereby gun control measures have increasingly left the legislature and instead have almost become the sole province of the courts. On the surface this makes sense, as such laws are, after all, often viewed as interpretations that push or redefine the boundaries of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. The failure of national efforts to curb gun violence, however, is largely attributable to the lobbying influence of the National Rifle Association. More importantly, it is limiting dialogue that belongs in the public and legislative forum to the closed courtrooms of judges and NRA-backed citizen activists who prioritize preserving strict interpretations of the Constitutional letter over protecting citizens’ lives.
Although well-intentioned, the Council’s new law misses the inherent danger of enacting concealed carry regulation. In the face of the one-year anniversary of the District Navy Yard shooting, which left 12 people dead, it is clear that institutional regulations on the use of firearms ultimately cannot ensure the safety of innocent lives.
Of the approximately 3,000 residents who have registered firearms since the District’s past ban on firearms was overturned in 2008, Mendelson expects that hundreds may now be eligible to receive carry permits. Such a number suggests that any presumed increase to the safety of gun owners pales in comparison to the risk that the District’s population at large will face because of the larger number of guns being carried in the city.
The ruling that struck down the District’s original carry ban is presently under 90-day stay, meaning that, until the stay is up, the Council may both make revisions to the new law and ask the court to reverse its ruling. The application period begins today. At this critical juncture, the Council should advocate that Scullin reconsider the ban’s constitutionality to avoid the legalization of conceal-and-carry in D.C., protect citizens’ lives, and preserve a sterling precedent for urban gun control. To do anything less would be to further jeopardize the already languishing gun control movement.
