Gun laws in the District of Columbia regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in Washington, D.C. [1]
Gun laws in the District of Columbia regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in Washington, D.C. [1]
| Subject / law | Long guns | Handguns | Relevant statutes | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Permit required to purchase? | Yes | Yes | The firearm registration process also serves as a permitting process. Purchases by DC residents may only be made through a federally licensed dealer ("FFL"), and firearms purchased through an FFL can only be physically delivered to the purchaser after MPD approves the purchase by issuing a firearm registration certificate. | |
| Owner license required? | Yes | Yes | The firearm registration process also serves as a licensing process. In the case of self-manufactured firearms, DC residents have 5 business days to file for a registration certificate after completing the self-manufacture of a firearm. | |
| Firearm registration? | Yes | Yes | All firearms (except certain black powder firearms) must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department as soon as they are brought into the District; for new purchases the registration must issue prior to the owner taking possession. An NCIC background check, fingerprinting, proof of address, and online training are required. | |
| License required for concealed carry? | N/A | Yes | The Metropolitan Police Department shall issue a Concealed Pistol License to a qualified applicant. Only registered pistols may be carried. Nonresidents must register a pistol with MPD in order to apply for a Concealed Pistol License. | |
| Open carry allowed? | No | No | Open carry is prohibited. | |
| Assault weapon law? | Yes | Yes | Law enforcement evaluates each firearm application on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the firearm is free of certain enumerated “assault” features before approving the firearm registration application. | |
| Magazine capacity restriction? | Yes | Yes | Possession of magazines capable of accepting or "readily restored or converted to accept" more than 10 rounds is prohibited. | |
| NFA weapons restricted? | Yes | Yes | Possession of machine guns, short barreled shotguns, and silencers is prohibited; possession of short barreled rifles is not specifically prohibited but short barreled rifles cannot be registered. | |
| Peaceable journey laws? | No | No | Federal law (FOPA) applies. | |
| Background checks required for private sales? | Yes | Yes | DC Code §7–2505.02 | Private party firearm transfers must be conducted through a licensed dealer, who is required by federal law to conduct a background check and keep a record of the sale. As a result of this and applicable federal law, all handgun transfers to DC residents must be conducted by FFLs located inside the District of Columbia. Long guns (shotguns and rifles) may be transferred to DC residents by FFLs located in other states, although DC law requires that those FFLs comply with DC law. Sales made by DC firearms owners to purchasers in other states need only conform to that state's transfer laws, although federal law requires that such transfers be facilitated through an FFL. |
| Waiting period? | Yes | Yes | After purchasing a firearm, the buyer must receive a registration certificate from the police department before taking possession of the gun, a process which can take up to 90 days. Officially, however, the minimum waiting period is ten days. | |
| Red flag law? | Yes | Yes | ||
| Duty to inform? | Yes | Yes |
A license to carry a handgun is required to legally carry a concealed handgun in the District of Columbia. Licenses are issued to qualified applicants on a "shall issue" basis by the Metropolitan Police Department. Licenses are granted to residents and non-residents. Concealed carry licenses issued by other jurisdictions are not valid in D.C. A license to carry is required for possessing a loaded handgun in a vehicle. [2] [3]
Open carry is not allowed in District of Columbia, except by law enforcement officers, military servicemembers, and security professionals while in the performance of their official duties.
In September 2022, DC, under threat of litigation, repealed code forbidding concealed carry of more than 20 rounds and code forbidding carrying more than two loads total of ammunition.
Under an "Enhanced Penalty Provision" DC law declares that areas within 1,000 feet of a school, college, day care center, playground, library, public housing complex and other public gathering spot to be enhanced penalty zones. The Metropolitan Police Department has clarified that this restriction does not bar persons with concealed carry permits from being within 1,000' of the specified locations, but only acts as a penalty enhancement for gun crimes within 1,000' of those locations. [4] [5]
In District of Columbia, all firearms, except some black powder firearms, must be registered with the police, by the terms of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975.
The same law also prohibited the possession of handguns, even in private citizens' own homes, unless they were registered before 1976. However, the handgun ban was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller . The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment acknowledges and guarantees the right of the individual to possess and carry firearms, and therefore D.C.'s ban on handguns was unconstitutional. [6]
Following the Heller decision, the Council of the District of Columbia enacted a set of rules regulating the possession of handguns and long guns in citizens' homes. Reductions were made to the DC laws in 2012 and 2015 under threat of lawsuits from gun owners and prospective gun owners. [7] On September 18, 2015, a federal appeals court struck down some parts of the District's gun registration law as unconstitutional, while upholding other parts of the law. [8] [9]
In addition to each firearm being registered with the police, the rules require that applicants undergo an NCIC background check and submit to fingerprinting. The firearms registry photographs the applicant. Applicants must take an online gun safety course. Applicants must also declare at what address it will be kept. Each firearm is registered to an individual only, meaning couples who wish to own firearms must purchase two separate firearms. Handgun registrants must be at least 21 years old. Long gun registration is allowed for persons 18–21 years of age with a NCIC qualified adult co-registering. Handgun models are limited to any handgun appearing on any one of the California, Massachusetts, Maryland or DC Police "approved rosters" by make/model. Long guns are controlled by an allowed/not-allowed attributes list. Non-residents with a place of business or employment in DC may register a firearm to be maintained at that place of business or employment. [10] [11] [12]
There is a 10-day waiting period from purchase of a firearm to possession. [13] However, residents must receive a firearm registration certificate issued by the Metropolitan Police Department prior to taking possession. [14] The time period for issuing a firearm registration certificate can be sixty days or greater, [15] typically obviating the statutory waiting period. [13]
An individual may not possess ammunition without also holding a valid firearms registration. Until May 2012, registrants were limited to possessing ammunition of the caliber of their registered weapon only. The ammunition laws in DC were relaxed in May 2012 and valid registration holders may now purchase and transport ammunition of any caliber excepting 50BMG (50 BMG weapons are prohibited in DC) and protective armor penetration ammunition. Interstate sale and shipment of ammunition to valid registration holders is legal. In DC, as in jurisdictions such as Massachusetts, any usable constituent part of ammunition is considered ammunition. E.g. Expended center-fire casings capable of being reloaded are ammunition under current DC police interpretation.
In June 1976, eighteen months after Congress established home rule for the District, the D.C. Council voted 12 to 1 to restrict city residents from acquiring handguns. Congress attempted to block this in September 1976 but failed. [16]
In February 2003, D.C. was sued in Parker v. District of Columbia for the ban on keeping guns at home. This case eventually morphed into the District of Columbia v. Heller case. In 2007, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found the law unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. On June 26, 2008, it ruled the law unconstitutional. [16]
Further challenges ensued in Heller II and Heller III. On October 4, 2011, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Heller II, upheld D.C.'s registration requirements and ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. [17] The case was sent back to the district court for further proceedings. The case returned to the appeals court as Heller III and on September 18, 2015, the court invalidated the following requirements: (1) re-registration of firearms every three years, (2) not being able to register more than one gun per month, (3) passing a written exam on D.C. gun laws before being allowed to register firearms, and (4) bringing firearms to the registration office for inspection at the time of registration. It also upheld the following requirements: (1) registration of long guns, (2) applicants personally appear at the Firearms Registration Office to be photographed and fingerprinted, (3) applicants view a one-hour gun safety training video in order to register a firearm (DC had, under pressure of the lawsuits, already substituted this free video for the prior $200 mandated live fire training course), and (4) registration and fingerprinting fees. [18]
On July 24, 2014, D.C.'s ban on open and concealed carry was struck down as unconstitutional in Palmer v. District of Columbia . [19] Initially Judge Frederick Scullin, Jr. did not issue a stay of his ruling. For a brief period of time, Judge Scullin's ruling effectively legalized permitless open and concealed carry with a valid firearm registration card, and non-residents without felony convictions could carry openly or concealed in the District. [20] [21] [22] But on July 29, 2014 Scullin issued an order that retroactively stayed the ruling until October 22, 2014. [23] [24] In response to the ruling, a Restrictive May-Issue concealed carry licensing law was enacted in September 2014. Under the new law, an applicant must show "good reason," to qualify for a concealed carry permit. However, on May 18, 2015, the "good reason" requirement was ruled as likely unconstitutional and a preliminary injunction was issued against D.C. from enforcing that requirement in Wrenn v. District of Columbia . [25] This effectively required the District to grant licenses on a Shall-Issue basis to qualified applicants who have passed a criminal background check and completed the required firearms safety training. Judge Scullin did not issue a stay of his ruling, but the Appeals Court did so on June 12, 2015, effectively leaving the restrictive "good reason" requirement in place while litigation continues. [26] It was later ruled that Judge Scullin, a visiting judge from New York, was outside his jurisdiction because he was only appointed to decide the Palmer case, not the follow-up Wrenn case. The Wrenn case was subsequently reassigned to a new judge who denied the request for a preliminary injunction.
On May 17, 2016, a separate case ( Grace v. District of Columbia ) was decided by District Court Judge Richard J. Leon. The Court issued a preliminary injunction that the "good reason" requirement was likely to be unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. The order said that anyone who met the eligibility requirements for a concealed carry license absent the good reason stipulation cannot be denied the license; the order was not stayed originally, but was subsequently stayed on May 27, 2016. [27] [28]
Both the Wrenn and Grace cases were consolidated before the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. and oral arguments were held on September 20, 2016. On July 25, 2017, in a 2-1 decision, the court invalidated the "good reason" requirement. The decision was put on hold to allow D.C. to appeal. [29] [30] [31] D.C. filed its appeal for rehearing en banc on August 24, 2017 [32] but its request was denied on September 28, 2017. [33] D.C. declined to appeal to the Supreme Court. [2]
In the United States, open carry refers to the practice of visibly carrying a firearm in public places, as distinguished from concealed carry, where firearms cannot be seen by the casual observer. To "carry" in this context indicates that the firearm is kept readily accessible on the person, within a holster or attached to a sling. Carrying a firearm directly in the hands, particularly in a firing position or combat stance, is known as "brandishing" and may constitute a serious crime, but is not the mode of "carrying" discussed in this article.
In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is modulated by a variety of state and federal statutes. These laws generally regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by state, local and the federal agencies which include the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was passed by the District of Columbia city council on June 29, 1976, and went into effect September 24, 1976. The law banned residents from owning handguns, automatic firearms, or high-capacity semi-automatic firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms. Exceptions to the ban were allowed for police officers and guns registered before 1976. The law also required firearms kept in the home to be "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device"; this was deemed to be a prohibition on the use of firearms for self-defense in the home. On June 26, 2008, in the historic case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the ban and trigger lock provisions violate the Second Amendment.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that certain restrictions on guns and gun ownership were permissible. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or whether the right was only intended for state militias.
Frederick James Scullin Jr. is an American attorney and Senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.
Gun laws in California regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of California in the United States.
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms", as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
Gun laws in New York regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of New York, outside of New York City which has separate licensing regulations. These regulations are very strict in comparison to the rest of the United States.
In the United States, the term constitutional carry, also called permitless carry, unrestricted carry, or Vermont carry, refers to the legal public carrying of a handgun, either openly or concealed, without a license or permit. The phrase does not typically refer to the unrestricted carrying of a long gun, a knife, or other weapons. The scope and applicability of constitutional carry may vary by state.
Gun laws in Illinois regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of Illinois in the United States.
Gun laws in Maryland regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of Maryland.
Gun laws in Michigan regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of Michigan.
Gun laws in Oregon regulate the manufacture, sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of Oregon in the United States.
Gun laws in Pennsylvania regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the United States.
Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F. Supp. 2d 462, reversed sub. nom., Woollard v Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, was a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of Raymond Woollard, a resident of the State of Maryland, by the Second Amendment Foundation against Terrence Sheridan, Secretary of the Maryland State Police, and members of the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' refusal to grant a concealed carry permit renewal to Mr. Woollard on the basis that he "...ha[d] not demonstrated a good and substantial reason to wear, carry or transport a handgun as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger in the State of Maryland" was a violation of Mr. Woollard's rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore unconstitutional. The trial court found in favor of Mr. Woollard, However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that decision.
Kachalsky v. Cacace is a case regarding the constitutionality of "may-issue" concealed carry laws. The plaintiffs, Alan Kachalsky, Christina Nikolov, and the Second Amendment Foundation, represented by Alan Gura, originally sought an injunction barring Susan Cacace, handgun licensing authority for co-Defendant Westchester County, New York, from enforcing a requirement of New York State law that applicants for handgun carry permits demonstrate "proper cause" for the issuance of a handgun license and subsequent carry of a handgun in public.
People v. Aguilar, 2 N.E.3d 321, was an Illinois Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (AUUF) statute violated the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Court stated that this was because the statute amounted to a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a personal right that was specifically named in and guaranteed by the United States Constitution, as construed by the United States Supreme Court. A conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm (UPF) was proper because the possession of handguns by minors was conduct that fell outside the scope of the Second Amendment's protection.
Peruta v. San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pertaining to the legality of San Diego County's restrictive policy regarding requiring documentation of "good cause" that "distinguish[es] the applicant from the mainstream and places the applicant in harm's way" before issuing a concealed carry permit.
Gun laws in the Northern Mariana Islands regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. As the Northern Mariana Islands is a commonwealth of the United States, many federal laws apply, as well as Constitutional rulings and protections.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), abbreviated NYSRPA v. Bruen and also known as NYSRPA II or Bruen to distinguish it from the 2020 case, is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court related to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case concerned the constitutionality of the 1911 Sullivan Act, a New York State law requiring applicants for a pistol concealed carry license to show "proper cause", or a special need distinguishable from that of the general public, in their application.