Gun laws in the District of Columbia

Gun laws in the District of Columbia regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in Washington, D.C.[1]

[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.

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 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.

[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.

Long gun registration is allowed for persons 18–21 years of age with a NCIC qualified adult co-registering.

[13] However, residents must receive a firearm registration certificate issued by the Metropolitan Police Department prior to taking possession.

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.

Circuit Court of Appeals, in Heller II, upheld D.C.'s registration requirements and ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

[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.

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.