The post-Bruen United States is a place where people in progressive strongholds are dealing with different challenges. The District of Columbia is one of those places tha already has some really harsh laws, but seems to be trying to fly somewhat under the radar. Let’s be honest, the District has caused a ton of harm to the Second Amendment already, including a little-known law in our nation’s capital that prohibits those with lawfully obtained carry permits from being able to engage in “off-body” carry.

Off-body carry, as a general concept, is carrying in a manner where a firearm is not directly attached to the body of the bearer. What that actually means though, is different, depending on who you ask. For example, one of the only other jurisdictions that has a similar prohibition is New Jersey, and their law differs a little bit from the District's.

Case number 2024-cv-1820 Russell et.al. v. District of Columbia et.al. was filed last month to try and address the issues around the district’s prohibitions.

This is not a conversation about tactics and whether or not off-body carry is or is not a good idea. Regardless of one’s opinion, off-body situations and carry makes sense at different times for different people. We’re going to see that in the complaint.

Former CNN Headline News Anchor Lynne Russell is convinced a 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 Licenses (“CPL”) and potential arrest. See DCMR § 24-2344.2. The District actively enforces this provision and has sought to revoke the CPLs of Plaintiffs Eric Christian and Timothy Beck for alleged violation of this provision. Because the provision in question is not consistent with the Nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation, Plaintiffs bring this action for declaratory and injunctive relief and for damages to vindicate their Second Amendment rights. IN addition, Plaintiff Beck brings this action for damages resulting from his false arrest and false imprisonment at the hands of MPD and officers of MPD’s Third District.

Plaintiff Russell’s situation was one that ended up being a best-case scenario for her and her husband. The story that’s told in the complaint said that Russell and her husband were staying at a motel in Albuquerque, New Mexico when they suffered an armed and violent push-in robbery.

Russell was returning to her room when the violent encounter happened and the armed assailant snuck up behind her, pushing her into the room. Russell’s husband was showering at the time and came out upon hearing the commotion. Russell handed her husband her purse, which had her firearm within it. A volley of fire resulted after Russell’s husband engaged the aggressor, with the perpetrator being struck four. The assailant died subsequently from his injuries.

In the complaint, it was noted that “Plaintiff Russell credits the gun in her purse with saving her and her husband's life.” A very real and unimagined reality is also highlighted, “Due to limitations on women’s fashion, Plaintiff Russell often carries a handgun in a purse or other device designed for off-body carry.” Off-body carry prohibitions are sexist, to just get started.

Other plaintiffs in the complaint bring forward a similar injury claim. The individuals would like to engage in off-body carry, or in an instance with one plaintiff, allegedly got caught engaging in off-body carry, but these law-abiding citizens do not in the district due to the strict regulation.

D.C. Municipal Regulation § 24-2344.1 and § 24-2344.2 state the following:

2344.1A licensee shall carry any pistol in a manner that it is entirely hidden from view of the public when carried on or about a person, or when in a vehicle in such a way as it is entirely hidden from view of the public.

2344.2A 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.

The provision in D.C.’s law, as noted earlier, is very similar to New Jersey statute; one of the only other jurisdictions in the country that takes issue with off-body carry. The complaint points this fact out, observing that their “research shows that holster regulations currently are exceedingly rare with only New Jersey having a regulation approaching that of the District’s.”

It’s going to be difficult for D.C. to meet the burden of proof in finding analogues on whether or not such restrictions are Constitutional. The complaint finds one modern – never mind one from the founding – similar law from New Jersey. The New Jersey law was changed to what it is today through their own Bruen-response tantrum, and it is not going to cut the mustard. Prior to Bruen, off-body carry was permissible for those that did, in fact, actually have a permit to carry in the Garden State.

This challenge to D.C.’s regulation comes from the offices of George L. Lyon, Jr., from Arsenal Attorneys, with Lyon and his partner, Matthew J. Bergstrom, serving as attorneys for the plaintiffs. Russell et.al. is the third filing we’ve reported on in recent weeks concerning challenges from Lyon’s office seeking to enjoin a D.C. Second Amendment infringement.

This challenge to D.C.’s ban is ripe for a win. Prohibiting this manner of carry is burdensome, regardless of one’s view on off-body carry, it’s only common sense that this regulation be enjoined from enforcement. 

As pointed out in numerous instances in the complaint, restraining permit carry holders in the district in this manner is not only unconstitutional, but also a safety risk. Further, a matter of preference should be accounted for, with anyone asking “why” to the off-body carry question, being given back the sound legal reasoning of, “It’s none of your business ‘why.’” We should be able to if we want to. It’s not a bill of needs.

We’ll be watching closely how this case fleshes out and will be reporting back when we hear something further.