Four Washington DC gun owners file lawsuit to carry firearms on public transit after Supreme Court ruling

The lawsuit is likely the first of many after the court’s conservative majority ruled that a New York law restricting firearms in public is unconstitutional

Four men in Washington DC with permits to carry concealed handguns filed a federal lawsuit against the nation’s capital city to legally carry firearms on the Metro transit system, arguing that a recent US Supreme Court ruling that struck down a New York law grants them permission to carry their weapons on public transit.

The lawsuit filed in US District Court on 30 June cites a ruling from the nation’s high court issued just days earlier on 23 June that ruled against a century-old New York law requiring handgun owners to show “proper cause” in order to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon in public.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court’s conservative majority, argued that laws banning concealed weapons in public spaces must “demonstrate that the regulation is consistent” with a “historical tradition of firearm regulation,” and determined that New York’s law violates the Second Amendment and the 14th Amendment “by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.”

Washington DC prohibits people with concealed-carry permits to bring firearms into “sensitive areas” including schools and government buildings, as well as the city’s transit system. The lawsuit argues that the Metro should not be considered a “sensitive area”.

The plaintiffs claim that “there is not a tradition or history of prohibitions of carrying firearms on public transportation vehicles” and “no basis to label the Metro as a sensitive area.”

The legal challenge is the first of many that are likely in the wake of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc v Bruen. California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island have similar “proper cause” requirements.

In his dissent in the New York case, Justice Stephen Breyer argued that it is both “constitutionally proper” and “necessary” for courts to consider the “serious dangers and consequences of gun violence” that compels states to regulate firearms before striking them down.

He condemned the majority’s decision for reaching its conclusion “without first allowing for the development of an evidentiary record and without considering the state’s compelling interest in preventing gun violence.”

On Friday, New York passed its own restrictions on guns in public areas, including public transit, parks, hospitals, stadiums and Times Square, among other locations, with Governor Kathy Hochul pledging “we’re not going backwards” following the Supreme Court’s ruling.

In 2008’s District of Columbia v Heller, which is cited throughout the Supreme Court’s latest ruling on guns, the court ruled against the city’s law banning handgun ownership in DC, pointing to Second Amendment protections for the right to bear arms while arguing that jurisdictions may enact and regulate restrictions on firearms.