D.C. Metro’s Rules for Carrying Guns on Trains Survive Challenge

Concealed-carry permit holders lack standing to challenge the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s rules for carrying guns on Metro trains, a federal court said.

The plaintiffs allege they have a constitutional right to carry concealed firearms for protection within D.C. Fearing arrest while riding Metro trains, they say they’ve taken more expensive transportation so they can transport their guns as they please.

The gun owners “failed to allege sufficient facts to support their standing to bring this preenforcement suit,” said Judge Randolph D. Moss of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, dismissing their complaint without prejudice for lack of Article III standing.

Under D.C. law, a licensed gun owner may only transport an unloaded firearm in a locked container that is separate from any ammunition, Moss said Aug. 9.

The plaintiffs said that the gun regulations violate their rights under the Second Amendment. In an earlier opinion, Moss dismissed the suit, ruling that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge. The plaintiffs amended their complaint, by attacking the law facially and as applied, saying it’s arbitrary and violates due process; they added parties and built out a claim for compensatory damages, the judge said.

The plaintiffs still didn’t have standing for any of their claims, Moss said. They weren’t entitled to pre-enforcement injunctive or declaratory relief against the District of Columbia because they didn’t allege a credible or imminent threat of prosecution, the judge said. Applying D.C. Circuit precedent, he said that the plaintiffs didn’t show that they’ve been singled out or uniquely targeted for prosecution.

The plaintiffs also failed to show that the individual plaintiffs, the D.C. attorney general, the chief of the WMATA Metro Transit Police Department, and the chief of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, singled them out for prosecution, Moss said. They didn’t demonstrate a sufficiently imminent threat of prosecution, he said.

The plaintiffs’ claims for compensatory damages from the city based on the extra expense they incurred while taking alternate transportation failed for substantially the same reasons, Moss said. They weren’t entitled to pre-enforcement relief because they didn’t sufficiently allege that they faced a credible and imminent prosecution, the judge said.

Everytown for Gun Safety filed an amicus brief in the case. Bloomberg Law is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg, who serves as a member of Everytown’s advisory board.

Holtzman Vogel PLLC and Bergstrom Attorneys PLLC represent the plaintiffs. The D.C. Attorney General’s Office and the WMATA General Counsel’s Office represent the defendants.

The case is Angelo v. District of Columbia, 2024 BL 275565, D.D.C., No. 22-1878 (RDM), 8/9/24.