DC’s AG says guns should remain banned on Metro

Months after the U.S. Supreme Court substantially changed the legal standards prohibiting guns in public, D.C.’s attorney general says handguns should continue to banned on the Metro transit system.

Attorney General Karl Racine, in a pretrial motion in a federal suit filed by four people seeking to carry guns on the public transit system, said Metro, with rail and bus passengers, including thousands of federal workers and children riding to school, is one of the “sensitive places,” where guns can remain prohibited.

The lawsuit, which was filed shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision expanding gun rights, says while bans in schools, stadiums and restaurants are likely constitutional, the gun owners should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on Metro.

Racine disagreed, saying, “every modern mode of interstate transportation prohibits the carrying of loaded firearms on one’s person,” including commercial aircraft and interstate buses

“In dense spaces characterized by jostling and interpersonal conflict, the risk of a gun being accidentally discharged or hastily fired is tragically high — not only for the innocent bystanders who may be shot, but also for the countless other victims who may be crushed or thrown from a platform by a panicked crowd,” Racine wrote.

In addition, Racine said any incident involving a gun “could disrupt transit of transit for the hundreds of thousands relying on government-provided transportation each day.”

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, have asked the judge to issue a preliminary injunction and rule in their favor, before trial. The plaintiffs say while Metro has its own police force, many trains and buses lack police presence.

“Even if the public transportation vehicles could be considered ‘sensitive areas,’ the prohibition on licensed carry on such vehicle is a substantial infringement on licensees’ Second Amendment rights. This is especially the case as to persons of limited means lacking access to alternative transportation,” according to the plaintiffs’ complaint.

Racine argues the plaintiffs failed to meet the “imminent and irreparable harm” standard required for a judge to rule before trial.

Neal Augenstein

Neal Augenstein has been a reporter at WTOP since 1997. Through the years, Neal has covered many of the crimes and trials that have gripped the region. Neal's been pleased to receive awards over the years for hard news, feature reporting, use of sound and sports.

Like WTOP on Facebook and follow WTOP on Twitter and Instagram to engage in conversation about this article and others.

Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

© 2022 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

More from WTOP

Log in to your WTOP account for notifications and alerts customized for you.

Sign up