Hello again everyone. Welcome to Washington Gun Law tv. I'm Washington Gun Law President William Kirk. Thanks for joining us. Coming to you from Washington's premier indoor shooting facility. Of course, that's Security Gun Club right here in Woodville, Washington. Hey, could you imagine if you lived in a jurisdiction where it is virtually impossible to get a concealed carry license? But then if you are so lucky as to win the Second Amendment lottery and get your concealed carry license, well then it comes with all sorts of conditions, including mandating exactly how you have to carry that firearm. And if God forbid you deviate from how government has told you you need to carry the firearm, well then you can be prosecuted criminally. Don't believe me, it actually happens in the United States. We're going to talk about it because someone is finally saying, Hey, I don't think there's any historical tradition to back this up, and they're right. So today, let's spend a few minutes and let's talk about the crazy DC law that mandates how you carry your firearm.
Okay, America, this is what we're talking about. We are talking about the case of Russell at all, the District of a Columbia. It is a challenge to two statutes in the District of Columbia who really, for just a small little jurisdiction, does an amazing job of coming up with all sorts of ridiculous and unconstitutional civilian disarmament legislation, thus making themselves oftentimes famous at the appellate court level for their ludicrous behavior. But I digress. Okay, now here's what's going on In the District of Columbia, there are two regulations. Those regulations specifically are municipal regulations, section 24 dash 2 3 4 4, and section 2 4 4 2 3 4 4 2. These regulations mandate exactly how you have to carry a firearm if you have actually been bestowed the privilege to do so. In the District of Columbia, the statutes specifically read, a licensee shall carry any pistol in a manner that is entirely hidden from view of the public when carried on or about a person or when in a vehicle in such a way that it is entirely hidden from view of the public.
Okay? That one doesn't sound too crazy, but when we get to 0.2 of the statute, we see this, A 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. Okay? Now, I think that we could agree that what is being mandated here is sound advice, but this is what guys I don't think you're going to realize is that for women, the ability to conceal carry is a little trickier and it's a little trickier for one simple reason that the attire that women typically wear, both on a casual and on a professional level is more difficult to conceal a firearm than the types of attire you see men wearing. And that's just the simple reality of the situation. And so what you frequently see, but it's not exclusive to women as you're going to see here, is women who carry their firearm in their purse, their handbag, or some other thing.
But as I mentioned, there are three defendants that you really need to be aware of. One of 'em, the name defendant, Ms. Russell, well, she's a former CNN anchor, and the plaintiffs here start their challenge with this former CNN headline news anchor. Lynn Russell is convinced the handgun in her purse saved her life and the life of her husband. Yet a district regulation prohibits purse carry and all other forms of off body carry on pain of revocation of Metropolitan Police Department MPD issued concealed pistol license CPL and potential arrest. But you see, here's the deal. The District of Columbia does take this real serious, for example, one of the other plaintiffs, Mr. Christian. Yeah. Now listen, he normally carries a firearm on his person, got into his car, took the firearm off of his person and set it next to him in his vehicle for comfort. I carry a four inch barrel.
Mine oftentimes goes into a center console holster, which in Washington state is not illegal. When he got pulled over for failing to signal a turn and law enforcement found a firearm that was not on his person. Yeah, they prosecuted for him for this. They forfeited the firearm and they confiscated his concealed pistol license, Mr. Beck's story, even worse because he was pulled over during a prostitution sting. And then when law enforcement found that candidly, they just pulled over a dude who had nothing to do with prostitution whatsoever, yet they went after him for the fact that they found his handgun in his sling bag on the passenger seat next to him. They too prosecuted him with a crime, confiscated the firearm and revoked his concealed pistol license. So of course now we have ourselves a lawsuit, which is why I'm doing a video about it.
And anytime we're going to start challenging civilian disarmament legislation, we're going to always start with the very simple question of I wonder if we have a historical tradition of doing things this way, right? Well, as the plaintiffs here point out in spite of the unambiguous text of the Constitution and binding Supreme Court precedent, including the Supreme Court's decision in New York Rifle and Pistol Association v Broin, the district unconstitutionally and under pain of criminal sanctions and revocation of the right to carry bans common methods of firearm carry, including in a purse, a sling bag, a backpack, or in a vehicle glove box or console. And for all of you who are everyday carriers, I'm assuming that you can all relate to at least one instance in which you had your firearm with you, but it was not secured on your person. And for my female viewers, yes, I have no doubt in my mind that you at times have carried the firearm in a purse, in a handbag, in a backpack, or while you're driving in the center console glove box or some other location under District of Columbia law, not only could you be convicted of a crime, you can lose your right to actually possess a firearm concealed anywhere within the district.
Defendant's enforcement of its OS Body carry ban violates plaintiff's fundamental individual right to keep and bear commonly possessed arms, which is exactly true. Now, many people think that the Bruin case was this earth shattering, oh my God, monumental occurrence. It really wasn't in many ways because it really just announced and reemphasized the holdings of Heller. And so as the plaintiffs point out here very correctly, it is patently plain that Bruin did not create a new test, but instead applied the very test the court established in district to Columbia v Heller. The test that the court set forth in Heller and we apply today in Bruin, requires courts to assess whether modern firearm regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment's text and historical understanding. So we have to ask ourselves, do we have any historical tradition of mandating that people who are carrying a firearm on 'em absolutely positively have it glued to their body at all times?
I am not familiar with that. Now, of course, the District of Columbia is going to argue like, well, we need this to save lives. Will this make gun owners safer? It makes our community safer. And even if all of that was true, and I know many of you were just rolling your eyes, you see under the Bruin test, none of that matters. In fact, the plaintiffs wisely point out it is irrelevant whether the regulation may have a salutatory effect for the public good or would otherwise pass a traditional interest balancing analysis. The Constitution reflects the balance already struck by the people, and therefore, the only way that a law like this could actually survive is if the District of Columbia could establish to meet its burden To justify our farms regulation. The district must point to a well-established analog from the founding period, possibly up to the period of the adoption of the 14th Amendment distinctly similar to its regulation.
And I don't know how many of you are historians, apparently more and more you have to geek out on Second Amendment stuff. The more and more you have to start reading your history books too. But one of the things that did not come to mind for me and probably did not come to mind for you, is there any statute, let's go all the way back to the colonial times where we did all sorts of goofy things that required that the firearm absolutely positively be on your person at all times. Probably not, right? Yeah. And that's what the plaintiffs thought as well when they put this in their memorandum, no regulation in the relevant period, whether that be the founding error or the period around the adoption of the 14th Amendment mandated that handguns must be carried in a holster on the body. And our research shows that holster regulations currently are exceedingly rare with only New Jersey having a regulation approaching that of the districts.
So ultimately, in asking for injunctive relief and in two instances asking for punitive damages to be awarded under 42 United States Code Section 1983, those are the two other plaintiffs who were actually arrested and prosecuted under this law. The plaintiffs argued to the court the following, it is beyond dispute that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. Here, plaintiffs are denied the individual right to carry firearms for self-defense if they choose to carry off body. Indeed, even if they add a purse or a bag or a backpack attached to their body with a holstered firearm located therein, they're subject to arrest and revocation of their CPLs has happened to the plaintiffs here. Listen, this is a big challenge, not only for the individuals in the District of Columbia and perhaps some folks in New Jersey who are living under the same ridiculous law, but if in fact this challenge is unsuccessful and those that are out to take your Second Amendment rights realize that this is another piece of legislation that can be passed, they will do so.
And what they will do is they will pass legislation that makes legal concealed carrying according to their statutes, virtually physically impossible, thus frustrating the American public from exercising what is supposed to be a constitutionally guaranteed and inalienable, right? Okay, the case once again is Russell V, district of Columbia. We're going to go ahead and link it up down below so that you guys can all geek out on it for yourself. Now, if you're wondering where I even got the idea that this law would somehow or another be disproportionately discriminate towards women, did I rely on my own sources? No, of course not. I went to the expert who's the expert that's stilettos with shotgun right here. Listen, if you're not following her on Twitter right there, you guys are all doing yourself a disservice if you got any questions about this issue or anything else related to what's left of our second Amendment right?
So you guys should know how to get ahold of Washington Gun Law by now. If you don't, that's okay. That information is down there in the description box. Maybe you got an idea for a video we should be doing. If you do click on that link right there, maybe you just want to be part of our monthly newsletter. If you do, the link to subscribe is down below in the description box. And then finally, and most importantly, let's everyone remember that part of being the lawful and responsible gun owner, like we talk about all the time here, is to know what the law is in every situation, how it applies to you in any instance that you may find yourself. Until next time, thanks for watching. Stay Safe.
YouTube Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2we-i6wBcg4&list=WL&index=4&t=601s
Credit: William Kirk, Esq., Washington Gun Law