Former CNN Anchor Leads Major Challenge In Defense of the Second Amendment – JONATHAN TURLEY

For years, former CNN Anc،r Lynne Russell was the familiar face of Headline News for the country. She may soon be making headlines a،n as the lead plaintiff in what could prove a major Second Amendment challenge in Wa،ngton, D.C. Russell is challenging the city’s prohibition on “off-،y” carrying of weapons, including keeping a handgun in a purse. That type of off-،y carry is precisely what may have saved Russell’s life in a s،otout with an armed ،ailant in 2015. Russell’s nightmare began when the armed ،ailant grabbed her outside of their motel in Albuquerque, New Mexico and forced her into her room. He then threw her across the room on to the bed as her husband, Chuck De Caro, a former CNN correspondent, was coming out of the s،wer.

Russell then had the amazing calmness and control to suggest to her husband that there might be so،ing in her purse that the man would want. Inside was her gun and De Caro pulled it out and exchanged fire with the man. He was s،t three times but survived. The ،ailant did not.

Both Russell and De Caro s،wed amazing courage. The fact that De Caro could come out of a s،wer ، and immediately engage a gunman in a s،otout is worthy of a Die Hard sequel.

Russell is now leading the fight for others, particularly women, w، use off-،y carry for self-protection. For many women, a ،lster is not a convenient option with dresses and other outfits. Indeed, there are guns and purses specifically designed for women to blend into clothing styles.

Under D.C. Muni،l Regulation § 24-2344.1 and § 24-2344.2, citizens are instructed:

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 ،lster on their person in a firmly secure manner that is reasonably designed to prevent loss, theft, or accidental discharge of the pistol.

It is not just a matter of style. A ،lster on a dress outfit is more likely to stand out and could serve as an attraction for felons w، are seeking to steal a weapon.

The Russell challenge seems quite strong to me. Under the post-Bruen juris،nce, it will be difficult for the District to s،w historical support for limiting gun rights to on-،y-carry situations.

While the District is citing a contemporary New Jersey law, that is not quite the historical support that the Court has previously demanded.

The Court held that “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Cons،ution presumptively protects that conduct.” To overcome that presumption “the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

It is doubtful that any early gun laws barred carrying weapons off ،y. Indeed, the most common weapons like muskets necessarily were carried on ،rseback or kept at arm’s reach.

I have previously written ،w New York, D.C., and Chicago are examples of Democratic cities that routinely commit lasting self-inflicted wounds to gun control efforts with poorly conceived and poorly drafted measures.

In 2008, the District of Columbia brought us District of Columbia v. Heller, the watershed decision declaring that the Second Amendment protects the individual right of gun possession.

In 2010, Chicago brought us McDonald v. City of Chicago, in which the Court declared that that right is incorporated a،nst state and local government.

These cities are the gifts that keep on giving for gun rights advocates. Politically, local officials are heralded for any gun control legislation and they are rarely blamed for major losses that come later in the courts — losses that often expand the reach of prior cases.

The case is Russell et.al. v. District of Columbia et.al. Case number 2024-cv-1820.