A federal judge in Washington, D.C. ruled Tuesday that part of D.C.’s new gun law, which requires that individuals must show “good reason” to get a concealed-carry permit for firearms, is unconstitutional.

In his ruling, District Judge Richard J. Leon called the requirement “inconsistent” with the Second Amendment and put in place a preliminary injunction to stop its enforcement in the District. In order to hold a concealed-carry firearm in the District, residents need to go through a multi-step application process to obtain a concealed-carry license (open carry is out of the question in the city). A part of this process requires applicants to demonstrate a “good reason” for why they would need to carry. For example, a resident could demonstrate a “good reason to fear injury to a person or property,” such as threats or attacks, or the need to carry a gun for employment purposes.

Judge Leon called the law “overly zealous,” and stated that it “likely places an unconstitutional burden”on the constitutional right to bear arms.

The ruling stems from a case filed late last year by Matthew Grace, a D.C. resident and a member the Pink Pistols, a guns rights group that describes itself as “an international organization dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for the self-defense of the sexual-minority community.” The group claims that the “good reason” clause is a “travesty of justice” and filed a lawsuit against the District of Columbia claiming that the law was unconstitutional.

So what does this mean for D.C. residents? The injunction puts a hold on the “good reason” requirement for the time being, which will make it easier for applicants to receive concealed-carry permits. The law has only granted 74 permits since the law was put into place in 2014, so D.C. will likely have more concealed weapons on its streets.

If and how this ruling has an impact on gun violence in the city remains to be seen, but this is a major development for guns rights activists.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Judge Says D.C. Residents Don’t Need “Good Reason” for Concealed-Carry Permits appeared first on Law Street.

Recreational marijuana may be legal in four states (and the District of Columbia) but it’s still not legal at the federal level. This has caused some problems and inconsistencies with between states and federal agencies–most recently, the United States Postal Service has declared that it is illegal to mail materials, including newspapers, that advertise marijuana.

This revelation comes after the Democrats of Oregon’s Congressional delegation wrote a letter to the Postal Service asking the agency to explain its policy. That inquiry was sparked by a memo that was circulated in the Portland, Oregon, postal district that stated that it was illegal for any media sources to run ads for marijuana and still distribute their publications through the Postal Service. The Democrats of the Oregon Congressional delegation explained their frustrations with the Postal Service’s policy, which they say is too rigid and doesn’t respect the voters of Oregon, stating:

We are working as a delegation to quickly find the best option to address this agency’s intransigence. Unfortunately, the outdated federal approach to marijuana as described in the response from the Postal Service undermines and threatens news publications that choose to accept advertising from legal marijuana businesses in Oregon and other states where voters also have freely decided to legalize marijuana.

In response, the Postal Service explained that “the Postal Service has released a national policy, which also spells out that local postal officials can’t refuse mail that contains pot ads, but they must report it; the matter must then be turned over to law enforcement agencies who can decide if an investigation is warranted.”

So, it’s actually pretty unclear what will happen if a newspaper or magazine publishes an ad for marijuana–the Washington Post points out that it’s tough to determine whether or not any prosecutions would come from breaking the policy. The law being broken would technically be advertising for illicit goods, but as the Washington Post states: “federal authorities have generally not cracked down on pot sales in states where they’re legal.”

Given that the number of states that have legalized marijuana are a notable minority, and traditional advertising isn’t necessary flourishing, this may not be a big deal. But it’s another messy manifestation of the current divide between state and federal law–one that only threatens to widen as more states legalize recreational marijuana.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Newspapers Can’t Run Marijuana Ads if They Want to Use the Postal Service appeared first on Law Street.

What’s the worst thing you’ve ever accidentally left in a bathroom? A cell phone? Purse? Credit card? How about a Glock pistol?

If you were lucky enough to find the missing item, who returned it to you? A co-worker? Boss? Janitor? Perhaps an eight-year-old child?

Here’s the situation: you are a member of House Speaker John Boehner’s police detail. You are protecting your charge when suddenly, nature calls. You answer this call in a lavatory at the Capitol. As you walk back to your post, you do not notice that you left your gun inside the restroom, in plain sight.

The firearm, a loaded Glock, was found by a child who was visiting the Capitol with his parents.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

You might think to yourself, “How could I have done that!? The gun did not even have a safety on it. I hope no one else ever does what I just did. Come to think of it, I wonder how many times something like this has happened before. I’ve heard of instances where housekeepers or janitors have found unattended guns, but never one where a kid found one. Oh dear. Well, at least Capitol Police are not required to disclose any details about this incident.”

^^But of course, these are all just hypothetical thoughts, and no one knows the true identity of the individual who left his gun in the Capitol restroom. The only thing the public knows about the absent-minded individual is that he got suspended for six days without pay, and could potentially be fired.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This is Probably the Worst Way to Forget Your Glock appeared first on Law Street.

A few months back I wrote a story about “California Police Officers Found Stealing Suspects’ Nude Photos.” It centered around a few cops in Contra Costa County, California who were stealing nude photos off of female suspects’ cellphones while those cellphones were in police custody. They would share the pictures among themselves, and then discuss and rank the women, rendering it a kind of perverted “game.” Well, when I wrote that piece, I kind of expected that this wouldn’t be the only example we heard of such disgusting behavior. I expected a similar story to pop up in another city or state. I was right–although it happened a little closer to home than I anticipated. Similar allegations are now being waged against a police officer in my city of Washington, D.C.

An Alexandria woman named Natalia Argote has filed a lawsuit against the Washington D.C. Police Department (MPD) and the cop in question, Terrence Richardson. According to Washington City Paper Richardson no longer works for MPD.

The suit claims that Argote was stopped by Richardson and another officer on March 3, 2012 on suspicions of driving under the influence. Her phone and drivers license were taken from her, which seems like a normal enough procedure. One of the officers administered a sobriety tested, while the officer went through her phone. She claims that he saw a nude photo she had taken for her boyfriend, and without her consent sent it to himself.

Argote’s suit doesn’t just claim that it was Richardson who violated her rights. She claims that this is a pervasive problem in the ranks of the MPD. The suit states:

On information and belief, MPD officers regularly rifle through the phones of female citizens without their permission or a warrant, searching for salacious photos.

On information and belief, MPD officers regularly share the salacious photos with each other and individuals outside the MPD.

On information and belief, on March 3, 2012, MPD was aware that its officers were conducting warrantless searches of female citizens’ phones and sharing the photos they stole; yet, it took no action to stop and correct its officers.

Whether or not Argote and her lawyer, Latif Doman, will be able to prove those claims remains to be seen. It will also be interesting to see why Richardson doesn’t work with the MPD anymore–whether it has anything to do with these allegations, or other misconduct, or whether he left voluntarily. As of yet, the MPD does not appear to have commented on the lawsuit.

When I first heard about the admittedly very similar California case, I was outraged, and I reacted similarly when I heard about this one. If what Argote alleges is true, she has every right to sue for an unfair search and violation of privacy. Being pulled over doesn’t mean that you lose all rights. Hopefully, MPD is about to learn that first hand.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post D.C. Cop Accused of Stealing Nude Photos After Woman Pulled Over appeared first on Law Street.

I’m writing this from Washington D.C. As many of you know, as of 12:00am Thursday, recreational marijuana became legal in our Nation’s Capital. Things will never be the same. Our Congresspeople are lounging on the steps of the Capitol, smoking joints. (This hasn’t affected their productivity–it has remained dismal.) All of the CVSes are out of Doritos. The National Mall looks like modern day Woodstock. It’s the end of this city as we know it.

Just kidding. Everything is still normal. Although it did snow in D.C.–a rarity for late February–I don’t think that had to do anything with recreational marijuana becoming legal. No, everything here in D.C. is basically the same. The line at Starbucks was still too long. The metro is a fiery pit of despair. My hallway still smells like weed–although I guess we shouldn’t be as surprised by that one.

Regardless though, nothing has changed, but it is now legal to smoke, possess, and grow recreational pot in D.C., with some obviously pretty heavy restrictions. But, given D.C.’s status, it’s kind of a mess.

D.C. is a unique place, to say the least. For a long time there was almost no ability to self-govern–an attitude left over from the idea that D.C. was to be the city where our federal government was located and little else. We did receive some limited home rule in the 1970s, but there’s still a lot in D.C. that’s controlled by everyone’s favorite group of whiny toddlers–Congress.

Now, weed became legal because a pretty sizable majority of the population of the District of Columbia voted to legalize it during the 2014 midterms. The ballot measure was named “Initiative 71.” However, unlike the states that have approved the legalization of recreational marijuana, D.C. has had to wait to figure out if our votes actually allow us to control the legislation of our own city. (I’m clearly not bitter.) Basically, we had to wait and see if Congress would step in and stop the legalization of weed. It didn’t–or at least not in so many words, though we’ll get to that later–so we’re in the clear, right? If only. There are still a lot of complicated, absurd things happening here in D.C. with regard to the legalization of marijuana, and here are a few of the most pressing:

D.C. Has a Lot of Federal Land

D.C. has two kind of distinctive parts to it–there’s federal land and then there’s the land that’s occupied by the city and by private residences, businesses, and buildings. Initiative 71 obviously only legalized weed on non-federal land. Although you can’t smoke in public anywhere, you can have it on your person without it being against the law.

While that sounds pretty straightforward, it’s not. In D.C. Twenty-nine percent of the land is actually federal–including parks, monuments, and buildings. With a few exceptions, every time that two diagonal streets meet, a park, square, or circle is formed. And all of those grassy areas are federal land–meaning they’re not good “grassy” areas, if you catch my drift. Here’s what the map of D.C. looks like if you mark all the federal land–it’s in green in the map below.

Watch your step. Weed will be legal in D.C. but not on 29% of city that is federal land. Map http://t.co/5tOfIZi33Zpic.twitter.com/kKOWCKy3bN

— Mary Pat Flaherty (@marypatflaherty) February 24, 2015

So unless you want to memorize that map, be careful, and be prepared take some weird routes home.

D.C.’s Weed Legalization Expects Everyone to be Very Generous

So, what D.C. legalized is actually kind of weird–it didn’t set up any sort of parameters to sell recreational marijuana. So you can have recreational weed, but you can’t buy or sell it. You can, however, gift it, or receive it as a gift. So, there will be a lot of “gifts” happening, presumably.

Congress is Still Freaking Out

The situation with Congress right now is very complicated. There’s basically an argument over whether or not what D.C. is doing is legal. In a federal spending bill, Congress had included a measure preventing D.C. from using money to “enact” marijuana legalization. That, however, isn’t what D.C. is doing. There really isn’t any money being used–not arresting people for possessing marijuana doesn’t cost anything. Furthermore, it may have already been “enacted” when it passed in November, so that measure, passed later, wouldn’t apply. It just depends a lot on your definition of enacted. Congress could still act, but right now it’s all up in the air.

So, that’s the news from here in the District. Whether or not legalized marijuana is here to stay is yet to be seen. Everyone’s confused, avoiding public parks, and Congress is being a pain, so it’s basically just business as usual here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Absurdity of D.C. Marijuana Legalization appeared first on Law Street.

It’s official. Two more states — Oregon and Alaska — have joined Colorado and Washington in legalizing marijuana.

Oregon’s Measure 91 had a convincing victory, winning approximately 54 percent of the vote. Like Washington and Colorado, Oregon will now allow regulated and taxed sales of marijuana to adults. Stores will probably come sometime in 2016, a timeline consistent with those that Colorado and Washington set for themselves previously.

Ballot Measure 2 passed in Alaska by a margin of roughly 52-48 percent. In 90 days it will become the law of the state, and the state will create mechanisms to regulate the use and sale of legalized recreational marijuana. Alaska has long had a lax view on marijuana laws — a 1975 court decision legalized very small amounts in the home, although it was incredibly narrow and not really followed. In addition, Alaskans have tried a few times to get legal marijuana on the ballot, voting on the issue in 2000 and 2004. While both measures obviously failed, Alaska has certainly had a storied and complicated history with marijuana legalization.

And then, of course, there’s D.C. Our nation’s capital legalized recreational marijuana use, although not the sale of marijuana. There’s confusion over what this actually means, though. Congress technically has oversight over the District, and it can take measures to basically make sure that nothing ever comes out of the passage of this initiative. D.C.’s ability to actually govern itself and the people who live within its borders is notoriously limited. No one can do anything to stop the 735,000 people who live in Alaska from legalizing marijuana, but D.C.’s 650,000 are prohibited by officials they didn’t even elect. That’s why there’s a big question mark next to D.C. — no one really knows what will happen here.

As fascinating as the wins were for the future of marijuana legalization, it’s also interesting to look at what they mean for the overall scheme of American politics. Democrats lost last night on pretty much every level. Some marijuana legalization was one of the very few things that Democrats support that made it through. But what’s important to remember about marijuana legalization is that it’s not so much a Democratic value, it’s also a very Libertarian issue. There are reasons for both Democrats and Libertarians to support marijuana legalization, which may have been one of the reasons that it passed. It’s a strange phenomenon, as 538‘s Ben Casselman tweeted:

So voters want a higher minimum wage, legal pot, abortion access and GOP representation. Ok then.

— Ben Casselman (@bencasselman) November 5, 2014

So, the success of marijuana legalization in an election where so many other Democratic measures failed could mean a few things. It could mean that the Libertarian wing of the Republican party is really becoming sort of a dark horse among Millennials who are frustrated with the way that Democrats have been running the country, but aren’t willing to align with the Republican base or the Tea Party on most social issues. Or it could just mean that Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia really enjoy getting high and don’t mind the increase in taxes that comes with the legalization of marijuana. Either way, it will be interesting to see if anything at all comes of the measure in D.C., as well as which states will be next to hop on the marijuana legalization bus.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oregon and Alaska Legalize Marijuana appeared first on Law Street.

I walked off the Woodley Metro yesterday at 5:30 pm and was kind of surprised to see Connecticut Avenue completely deserted at the height of rush hour.  All cars had been cleared from the street. No traffic. No parked cars. Completely quiet.

What in the world was happening?

Word soon was out: President Obama would be passing through.

Last summer, President Obama exulted in his ideal-for-the-evening-newscasts forays beyond the White House. Ice cream. Starbucks. “The Bear is loose!” But things are different now. Fence jumpers. Ottawa shootings. This is what it looks like when The Bear is loose today. Clear the streets. Eerie quiet at the height of rush hour. Nobody moves.

The President drove up and back yesterday afternoon to a private $32,400-a-seat fundraiser at the estate of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and his wife, Sharon. The Rockefeller estate is a little bit north of Woodley, at 2121 Park Road adjacent to Rock Creek Park. Press was excluded from this event, and no info was listed on the official White House daily schedule.

I decided to stay put and wait to see how the Presidential motorcade was rolling now, a day after the killings in Ottawa and the ongoing White House fence jumpings.

The answer: These days the Bear rolls very quietly, in a traffic-free bubble.

I took this cell-phone video:

Here is the order of the motorcade:
9 DC cops on motorcycles.  Followed by…
1 DC cop car.  Followed by…
1 Secret Service SUV…
The Presidential limo, aka “Cadillac One”…
1 back-up limo traveling alongside Cadillac One…
3 more Secret Service SUVs…
The Secret Service “War Wagon” housing a counter-assault SWAT team…
2 more Secret Service Vans…
Another Secret Service SUV
1 DC Fire Department ambulance (only Obama gets this; not Biden)…
And finally…
2 more DC cop cars.

About 10 minutes after the motorcade passed, presumably after the Bear was back at the White House, ordinary citizens were once again allowed on Connecticut Avenue.
—

John A. Jenkins (@JenkinsAuthor) is Founder and CEO of Law Street Media.

Featured image courtesy of [Joe Crimmings via Flickr]

John A. Jenkins

John A. Jenkins is Founder & CEO of Law Street Media. Contact John at jjenkins@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How the Bear Rolls Now appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama stirred up an old debate recently by becoming the first sitting president to endorse statehood for the District of Columbia. Obama expressed his full support: “I’m in DC, so I’m for it…Folks in DC pay taxes like everybody else. They contribute to the overall well being of the country like everybody else. There has been a long movement to get DC statehood, and I’ve been for it for quite some time.”

Here’s what you need to know about Washington DC’s contentious battle for statehood, what it would mean for District residents, and what impact it would have on the country.

Why was the District of Columbia created?

To understand the arguments for statehood, you have to understand the history of Washington, DC. The District of Columbia was specifically created to house the federal government. The authors of the Constitution wanted to house the federal government in its own jurisdiction after witnessing the problems of having the nation’s temporary capital in Philadelphia. The decision was made in 1787 following an incident in which the governor of Pennsylvania refused to disperse rioters threatening Congress in Philadelphia. The framers did not want the federal government to be subject to any decisions of a specific state or governor. So, the delegates wrote Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution to outline Congress’ control over the district:

“[The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States.”

Congress moved to a new federal capital in 1800, and the District still stands today on land ceded by Maryland. Residents of the District face a number of unique circumstances because it is not a state.

Originally, DC residents were barred from voting for president. It was not until 1961 that the passage of the 23rd Amendment finally secured three electoral votes for the District. DC residents also elect one non-voting member to the House of Representatives.

The District of Columbia has operated under a system of Home Rule since 1973 as a way to better govern local affairs. Home rule means that DC is allowed a local government, including a directly elected mayor and city council. Still, Congress has the ultimate authority and the power to overturn any laws passed by the local government.

Why do people push for DC statehood?

Right to Vote

Residents of DC express outrage that they pay federal and local taxes, are subject to the same laws as everyone else, fight in wars, and serve on juries, yet they lack the same Congressional representation. The argument is also made that this disenfranchisement comes from a legacy of racism aimed at the District’s majority African-American population. Those in favor of statehood want the full rights of being an American citizen, which includes full representation in Congress as well as full control over local affairs. In addition to lacking voting power, DC’s representative in Congress is denied a federal salary and an office. License plates in DC decry residents’ lack of status with the slogan “Taxation without Representation.” Watch President Obama’s remarks on DC statehood below:

Local Control

Many citizens are fed up with the limitations of DC’s Home Rule. Since Congress can overturn any law, it has exerted its power on a number of issues passed by DC residents. Congress has intervened to restrict abortions, to prevent restrictions on firearm ownership, and even to control marijuana issues. Congress has also barred DC from using local tax dollars on specific things, such as statehood advocacy and needle exchange programs.

Taxes

Citizens claim they do not have enough financial resources to pay for high-quality public services. Although DC is not a state, it has all the financial burdens of one. It provides local services, like public schools and a police force, but it also provides services typically dealt with at the state level, like mental health and Medicaid. DC has limited taxing powers. The District cannot tax income earned within its borders by non-residents, even though all other states have that power. Two-thirds of income in the District is made by people who do not live in the District, yet they pay no income tax.  Additionally, the federal government, embassies, and non-profits that occupy most of DC pay no property, sales, or income taxes. The small size of the city and disproportionate number of low-income workers with higher needs for public services strain the District financially. Still, DC residents pay the highest federal taxes per capita.

Growing Population

Washington DC’s fast-growing population of approximately 650,000 — larger than Wyoming or Vermont — is large enough to make it a state. According to the Washington Peace Center, DC as a state could bring in more than $2 billion a year in additional revenue. This would allow the local government to cut taxes and better fund schools and services. Freeing itself from Congressional oversight would also make the district more efficient. Watch more about the DC statehood movement below.

Shutdowns

The 16-day federal government shutdown during Fall 2013 illustrated issues with DC dependency on federal funds and approval. DC Mayor Grey did not shut down local services but suspended some payments so the city could remain operational. Mayor Grey warned that vital city services were dangerously close to ending as the city’s emergency funds were depleted. Allowing DC the autonomy of statehood would prevent these issues in the event of a federal government shutdown.

Legally, how would statehood be achieved?

Despite President Obama’s supportive statement, making DC a state is unfortunately not within his power. There are a couple of avenues that the District of Columbia could take to obtain statehood.

Constitutional Amendment

There is some debate as to whether an amendment could make DC an official state, but it could definitely give DC’s residents much greater rights and further define the area of the federal district. Two-thirds of Congress would have to approve a matching constitutional amendment. Alternately, two-thirds of state legislatures could call a Constitutional Convention. The amendment would then be sent to the states for ratification by three-fourths. Naturally this process would be very difficult. A proposed amendment in 1985 to give DC more voting power was only ratified by 16 states in the allotted seven-year span. Further, critics point out that any constitutional amendment could later be repealed.

Law

Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution outlines the creation of new states.

“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”

Under this section, an act of Congress could make DC its own state with a simple majority vote and signature from the President. This was the same process followed by Hawaii and Alaska as recently as 1959. There is some question as to whether Maryland would need to approve statehood, since DC was formed on land from Maryland. Still, bills are introduced to Congress nearly every year, but none has been brought to a vote since 1993. Most Congressional leaders like the idea of admitting states as pairs, so there is a good chance any vote to make DC a state would also include a bid of statehood for Puerto Rico.

Proposals for giving DC Congressional representation are much more common than bills for complete statehood. These bills have not been met with success. Some contend that giving District residents the right to vote may not even be within Congress’ power.

What are the current proposals?

Previous campaigns for statehood have referred to the new state as “New Columbia,” and the name is still associated with the movement today. The New Columbia Admissions Act was introduced in 2013 before failing to make it out of committee. The Act closely follows the proposed constitution ratified by DC voters in 1982. The plan would create a new state while still keeping a much smaller area of DC a federal district. The area of the federal district would shrink substantially, but would include all important federal buildings like the Capitol, White House, and Supreme Court. The Constitution sets an upper limit on the size of the District at 10 square miles, but no lower limit is set. All of the other residential land currently in DC would then become the 51st state. New Columbia would be granted the same rights as any other state in the Union.

To advance its agenda, the District of Columbia still selects members to a shadow congressional delegation that lobbies Congress to grant statehood and voting rights. The positions were authorized by a “state” constitution in 1982 authorized by voters, but this delegation is still not recognized by Congress. Numerous groups in DC continue to lobby for statehood. Watch DC Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton speak on statehood below.

What are the arguments against statehood?

In Federalist No. 43, James Madison argued that the District of Columbia needed to be independent for maintenance and safety concerns. Madison wrote,

“A dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy.”

Arguments against statehood today follow similar lines. Americans are concerned that the federal government would be dependent on a single state to cover its security and general operations. With such great power, a state could restrict the federal government in ways that would not be beneficial to the rest of the nation. However, the plan to keep important governmental buildings as a federal district largely mitigates these concerns.

The uniqueness of the DC area makes statehood very difficult politically. Some of the arguments opponents have:

• Similar to all states with relatively small populations, DC’s small size and population would give it an unfair influence in politics.
• The liberal area would be a stronghold for Democrats, and DC would always send Democrats to Congress.
• The interests of the District would be dominated by the federal government, since it would be the state’s largest employer by far.
• The state would be the only one without rural residents. This means the representatives would share none of the interests held by non-urban areas.
• A state could enact a commuter tax on non-residents who come to the state to work. Such a tax is currently banned under Home Rule.
• The constitutional question of whether the state of Maryland would have to consent to the new state, since the district was formed on land granted by Maryland.
• Some people flat out do not want to witness a strange-looking flag with 51 stars. But not to worry, numerous 51-star flags have already been designed, and they don’t look too bad.

Courtesy of jacobolus via Wikipedia

Are there any other alternatives to statehood?

Most citizens in favor of DC statehood oppose settling for anything less. Some propose bills to grant voting representation to members of DC, such as simply allowing DC’s representative in the House of Representatives the power to vote. Others worry these laws could be undone by the next Congress — and Congress may not even have the authority to make such a law.

Others propose some sort of tie with Maryland. This could mean parts of DC being given back to Maryland. However, neither Maryland nor DC really want to merge. A less drastic solution is Congress restoring the voting rights of District residents by allowing them to vote as a part of Maryland while maintaining the integrity of the District. Still, residents want voting as well as increased autonomy over local affairs.

Issues over DC statehood will not soon be resolved unless residents can be better provided some method of true representation. Most recently in the never-ending saga of DC residents, issues arose with DC driver’s licenses not being considered a valid form of ID by uninformed TSA agents. The good news is DC statehood would likely make the lives of TSA agents much easier.

Resources

Primary

Senate: New Columbia Admission Act

The District of Columbia: Statehood

Additional

Week: Obama Endorses Statehood for Washington, DC

Daily Caller: Obama Endorses DC Statehood

Huffington Post: Let’s Settle This Once and for All: DC Statehood is Constitutional

New Columbia: Vision

Brookings: If the District of Columbia Becomes a State: Fiscal Implications

Neighbors United for DC Statehood: FAQs

Mother Jones: DC: The 51st State?

Washington Post: Budget Deal Reminds DC That Congress is Still in Charge

Washington Peace Center: DC Statehood: A Primer

Brookings: A Sound Fiscal Footing for the Nation’s Capital

Hill: Denying DC Statehood Continues Federal Overreach

Smithsonian Magazine: Designing a 51-State Flag

Hill: DC Delegate to Meet with TSA

Leadership Coalition: Why DC Voting Rights Matter

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The 51st State: What DC Statehood Would Mean for the Country appeared first on Law Street.

The nation’s capital is not having a good summer.

Just weeks after Congress tried to overturn a few of D.C.’s laws, a U.S. District Court judge has ruled that the city’s ban on carrying handguns in public is unconstitutional.

If that sounds familiar, it’s because this is the second time that a court has overturned a D.C. gun law in the past six years. The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the district’s 32-year-old ban on private handgun ownership was unconstitutional in the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller. This was the first time that the Supreme Court had ever stated that the Second Amendment guaranteed gun ownership for every American. For D.C., it meant the city had to rewrite their gun laws.

These new laws allowed residents to keep registered handguns in their home and required gun owners to obtain a permit before carrying in public. However, the city had a policy of refusing to issue any of these permits. This amounted to a de facto ban on handguns in public. Authors of the law argued that D.C.’s status as the nation’s capital gave it reason enough to ban handguns, since they would put the many federal buildings, government officials, and memorials at risk. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier put it this way at a hearing in January:

The District of Columbia, as the seat of the Federal government, with its multitude of critical official and symbolic buildings, monuments, and events, and high-profile public officials traversing the streets every day, is a city filled with ‘sensitive’ places. Our laws should reflect that reality.

This reasoning did not fly with Senior District Court Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. Heller and a similar ruling in Chicago gave Scullin enough precedent to strike down the ban. Chicago attempted to ban the sale of firearms within city limits. U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang found this law to be unconstitutional. Chang was not convinced that banning the sale of firearms would reduce gun violence.

What’s next?

D.C. will appeal this ruling, and they have reason to be confident. In 2012, a U.S. District Court struck down a Maryland law which only issued carry permits to individuals who could provide a “good and substantial reason” for carrying a firearm outside of the home. The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned this ruling one year later. This provides an important precedent for proponents of the D.C. ban. There are reasonable restrictions that can be placed on an American’s right to carry a firearm in public. Even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said as much in his majority opinion in Heller:

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

While the court ruled in 2008 that citizens are allowed to own firearms, it added that restrictions on such ownership were not unconstitutional. Specifically, Scalia’s majority opinion argued that “the carrying of firearms in sensitive places” can be forbidden. It might be a stretch to claim that the entire District of Columbia is a “sensitive place,” but at least D.C. has a leg to stand on.

In the meantime, how will this ruling impact D.C. residents?

The D.C. Attorney General has requested a stay, but one has not yet been granted. This means that, for now, it is legal to carry a handgun in the nation’s capital. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier has instructed officers to not arrest anyone holding a registered handgun. Those visiting D.C. who have a carry permit from another state will also be allowed to carry their handgun.

As frustrating and frightening as it is to see a judge allow any Joe Schmo to carry a gun in a city that is home to so many important people and high-profile targets, the city should have seen this coming, especially in the wake of Heller. To respond to a court’s rejection of your strict gun ban with another strict gun ban is foolish, and claiming that an entire city is a “sensitive place” is laughable. Yes, many parts of D.C. are home to federal buildings, but there are large areas of D.C. that look like any other city. There are shopping centers, grocery stores, apartment complexes, and everything else that makes a city a city. There are also threats to the safety of the average citizen, and D.C. residents have the constitutional right to defend themselves from those threats with a gun.

For the safety of D.C. residents, Mayor Vincent Gray and the city council need to approve new and sensible gun laws that balance the need to protect our government officials with the right of all D.C. residents to defend themselves. Banning or allowing guns everywhere in the city are not viable options.

—

Eric Essagof (@ericmessagof) is a student at The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Robert Nelson via Flickr]

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post D.C. Gun Laws Ruled Unconstitutional, Again appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [thisisbossi via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Business Law: #7 Georgetown University Law Center appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, citizens in both Washington, DC and Salt Lake City, Utah, poured out to celebrate gay pride at annual parades in their respective cities. In DC the mood was good. Jake Hudson, a DC local and 27-time parade attendee, actually sat it out this year, claiming this was because he was more than happy with the District’s stance on gay rights. But in Salt Lake City, the exact opposite happened. This year’s participants faced resistance from an unexpected and shameful source — the police department. An unnamed police officer refused his assignment to protect parade supporters and ensure safety. Although the Salt Lake City Police Department condemned his choice, the officer still serves as a prime example of Utah’s history of anti-gay rights legislation.

Gay Rights in Utah

Utah’s predominantly Mormon constituency tends to argue against same-sex marriage. Although some progressive groups in the community now openly support LGBT initiatives, the more conservative majority remains dominant. For this reason, gay rights legislation in Utah has had little success and far too many failures. Utah’s gay community has seen no substantial legislative victories, with the exception of a 17-day lift on Utah’s same-sex marriage ban last December. LGBT couples in Utah are even prohibited from adopting children.

Gay Rights in DC

On the other side of the country, DC’s LGBT community has won countless political gains. Gay and lesbian couples have had the right to marry since 2009, and they won the right to adopt, use IVF, and hire surrogates in March 2013. In addition to these major legislative wins, the community is protected from hate crimes and sexual orientation discrimination. DC is the poster-child for gay and lesbian rights in the U.S. “I hate to say it, but we have just about everything we could want,” said Hudson.

The mayoral race in DC pretty much proves the fact that choosing a candidate based solely on shallow prejudices is no longer acceptable. There is both an openly gay candidate, Independent David A. Catania, and a candidate with a history of strong support for LGBT causes, Democrat Muriel Bowser. Based on their platforms, it is clear that both candidates would be more than willing to pass pretty much any LGBT legislation that comes their way. For example, Bowser vowed to vote against Mayor Grey’s DC United soccer stadium proposal that would have displaced the DC LGBT Center. She also hired Bo Shuff, an openly gay campaign manager who has worked in the past for the LGBT rights groups Equality Ohio and the Human Rights Campaign. Therefore, DC’s LGBT community is focusing more on the more day-to-day policies of each candidate, rather than choosing the one candidate who might be in favor of extending gay rights. Nonetheless, all the advancements inside the District mean much more when you pair them with the lack thereof  in Utah. DC’s equality-driven environment is a prime example for the rest of the country  to emulate.

In a dichotomy such as this, where two sides of the country differ so drastically on such a prominent issue as gay rights, the only solution can be found in education and dialogue. There may still be a chance to encourage Utah’s youth to join the cause, while it may prove harder to change the minds of the state’s older constituents. Perhaps those who made the DC movement so successful could shift their efforts toward the country’s less progressive states.

Although it is undeniably frustrating to see two sides of a single country be so out of sync with each other, it is important to remember that social change across independent states never happens simultaneously. The horribly slow civil rights process in the South in the fifties and sixties is often blamed on tradition and prejudice. It’s fair to say the same thing is happening with gay rights in conservative areas of the country.

But there is hope in the region. Both Colorado, Utah’s neighbor, and Washington, are very progressive on many issues, ranging from the legalization of marijuana to voting for President Obama in 2012. Washington, Oregon, California, and New Mexico have already established legal gay marriage, sparking a dialogue in Utah’s western region. Like dominos, the spread of liberal causes is influenced by neighboring states. Hopefully the Utah domino is soon to follow.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Guillaume Paumier via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DC and Salt Lake City Gay Pride Parades Reveal National Split on LGBT Rights appeared first on Law Street.