An order issued by the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department regarding not enforcing District laws against carrying handguns has been rescinded, a MPD Communications Office news release advised Tuesday.
“In light of the court issuing a stay of the Palmer v. District of Columbia order, Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier today issued a notice to members of the Metropolitan Police Department rescinding two teletypes related to firearms,” the release explained. “All laws related to firearms regulation and crimes remain in effect.”
“Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. of trhe U.S. District Court, issued a stay of his order of July 26, 2013 in Palmer v. District of Columbia,” the accompanying teletype elaborated. “Implementation of his order is delayed for 90 days while the stay is in place. Therefore, Teletypes 07-137-14 and 07-138014 are rescinded. All laws related to firearms regulation and crimes remain in effect.”
Noting that the public may not be aware of today’s development, the teletype reminds officers to handle firearms-related matters “with caution.”
This column reported on the Palmer decisions on Sunday, when a challenge to the District’s ban on carrying firearms outside the home resulted in the law being struck down by Judge Scullin. The Second Amendment Foundation was a plaintiff and principle backer of the lawsuit, and their attorney was Alan Gura, who guided Second Amendment challenges to victory in the Heller case, in which the Supreme Court recognized the right to keep and bear arms applies to individuals, and in the McDonald case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that right applies to the states as well as to the federal government.
Yesterday, this column presented the Metropolitan Police Department’s response to Judge Scullin’s ruling, including an impact teletype advising officers that District gun laws would not be enforced until further notice, and a follow-up teletype intended “to assist members in making immediate enforcement decisions” pending resolution of legal issues. That column was subsequently updated to include a copy of the defendant’s motion requesting a 180-day stay, as well as a copy of the judge’s order for a 90-day stay, which was agreed to by the plaintiffs.