DC Residents Sue to Keep Guns in Home
DC Residents Sue to Keep Guns in Home
DC Residents Sue to Keep Guns in Home
By Robert B. Bluey
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
February 12, 2003
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) – Residents of the District of Columbia have lived with some of the nation’s most restrictive gun-control laws since 1976. Six of those residents, who claim their safety is at risk because they can’t defend themselves, have sued the city to force a change in the law.
The plaintiffs say they simply want the same liberties afforded to other U.S. citizens, particularly the right to carry a gun in their own home.
Tom G. Palmer, who has lived in the District of Columbia on and off for almost 28 years, said he owns several firearms, including handguns and long guns, but under the city’s gun-control laws, he is unable to keep them in his home. He currently stores them outside the district.
“I should have the right to have a firearm in my home for my own defense,” he said. “I’m not a violent person. I’ve never hurt anybody. I’m a taxpayer and law-abiding citizen. And I do not think it is reasonable to have to call 911 and wait for D.C.’s finest to show up if I’m attacked.”
In Palmer’s case, that has already happened once outside of the nation’s capital, but he said his gun was a lifesaver on that occasion. As a homosexual man, Palmer said he often encounters harassment and life-threatening remarks. He added that while living in his D.C. home, he has had to scare off would-be robbers a handful of times.
Shelly Parker, who lives in a high-crime neighborhood, said drug dealers have threatened her life, and although she would like to keep a gun in her home, she feels it is pointless because of the harsh penalties she would face if caught.
Residents found possessing a functional firearm – even in their own home – face a $1,000 fine and a year in jail for a first offense, then a $5,000 fine and five years in jail for a second offense.
Dick Anthony Heller, another plaintiff, carries a handgun for his job as a security guard at the Thurgood Marshall Judicial Center on Capitol Hill, but is not allowed to possess a functioning gun in his own home. When he applied for a license, the city denied his request.
The other three plaintiffs – Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau and George Lyon – have similar stories and each would like to keep a gun in their home to protect themselves.
Peter Lavallee, spokesman for the D.C. Corporation Counsel, said the city was served with the lawsuit Tuesday. He declined to comment and said the city would make its case in court filings.
Robert A. Levy and Gene Healy, legal scholars at the libertarian Cato Institute, and two other attorneys brought the lawsuit on behalf of the residents. The Cato Institute, however, is not endorsing the lawsuit, and Palmer, who works there, said his involvement is as a private citizen.
Healy said the lawsuit was triggered by frustration from D.C. residents, but it also comes at a time when Second Amendment supporters have gained legal momentum.
“For years the Second Amendment was treated as a constitutional ink blot,” Healy said. “Nobody except grassroots activists took it all that seriously, but we’ve seen over the last decade more legal scholars say the activists were right — the amendment actually means what it says, the right of the people doesn’t mean the right of the state.”
For that reason, Healy is optimistic the residents will prevail.
“It is time that law-abiding, hard-working people, like our plaintiffs can be trusted in their own homes with a gun,” Healy said. “Under the District of Columbia’s position, if someone breaks into your home, your choice is to call 911 and pray that the police get there in time. We think that’s outrageous and unconstitutional.”
The plaintiffs do face an uphill fight. Another challenge to the city’s gun-control laws failed in 1987.
The new complaint was filed in federal court, whereas the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled on the 1987 case, Sandidge v. United States. At the time, the appeals court found the city could regulate firearms because the Second Amendment applied to a “collective right” rather than an individual right to bear arms.
Since then, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has affirmed that individuals (not just members of a militia) have a constitutional right to own guns. Attorney General John Ashcroft has also used the Fifth Circuit’s United States v. Emerson decision to formulate the Justice Department’s official position in interpreting the Second Amendment.