Background
Gregory T. Angelo and three other licensed pistol owners sued the District of Columbia and various officials, alleging that the District’s ban on carrying firearms on public transportation violated their Second and Fifth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the case for lack of standing, citing precedent requiring a showing of imminent prosecution risk. The plaintiffs argued that the ban forced them to incur higher costs for alternative transportation.
The court’s reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that the pistol owners suffered a concrete injury in fact because the Metro Ban directly regulated their conduct and forced them to incur monetary harm by avoiding public transit. The court distinguished prior cases like Navegar and Clapper, noting that those involved speculative threats of enforcement or surveillance, whereas this case involved direct economic injury from compliance with a law aimed specifically at the plaintiffs. The court affirmed the dismissal of damages claims against individual defendants who were not appealed or were abandoned, but reversed the dismissal of claims against the District and for injunctive relief.
The pistol owners have shown standing for their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against all defendants, and for their damages claims against the District, based on the pocketbook transportation-cost injuries that the Metro Ban inflicts.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Millett
What it means going forward
The decision allows the Second Amendment challenge to proceed to the merits, requiring the District to defend the constitutionality of its ban on carrying firearms on public transit against claims of economic injury and constitutional violation.