<P> In February 2003, D.C. was sued in Parker v. District of Columbia for the ban on keeping guns at home . This case eventually morphed into the District of Columbia v. Heller case . In 2007, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found the law unconstitutional . The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case . On June 26, 2008, it ruled the law unconstitutional . </P> <P> Further challenges ensued in Heller II and Heller III . On October 4, 2011, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Heller II, upheld D.C.'s registration requirements and ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines . The case was sent back to the district court for further proceedings . The case returned to the appeals court as Heller III and on September 18, 2015, the court invalidated the following requirements: (1) re-registration of firearms every three years, (2) not being able to register more than one gun per month, (3) passing a written exam on D.C. gun laws before being allowed to register firearms, and (4) bringing firearms to the registration office for inspection at the time of registration . It also upheld the following requirements: (1) registration of long guns, (2) applicants personally appear at the Firearms Registration Office to be photographed and fingerprinted, (3) applicants view a one - hour gun safety training video in order to register a firearm (DC had, under pressure of the lawsuits, already substituted this free video for the prior $200 mandated live fire training course), and (4) registration and fingerprinting fees . </P> <P> On July 24, 2014, D.C.'s ban on open and concealed carry was struck down as unconstitutional in Palmer v. District of Columbia . Initially Judge Frederick Scullin, Jr. did not issue a stay of his ruling . For a brief period of time, Judge Scullin's ruling effectively legalized permitless open and concealed carry with a valid firearm registration card, and non-residents without felony convictions could carry openly or concealed in the District . But on July 29, 2014 Scullin issued an order that retroactively stayed the ruling until October 22, 2014 . In response to the ruling, a Restrictive May - Issue concealed carry licensing law was enacted in September 2014 . Under the new law, an applicant must show "good reason," to qualify for a concealed carry permit . However, on May 18, 2015, the "good reason" requirement was ruled as likely unconstitutional and a preliminary injunction was issued against D.C. from enforcing that requirement in Wrenn v. District of Columbia . This effectively required the District to grant licenses on a Shall - Issue basis to qualified applicants who have passed a criminal background check and completed the required firearms safety training . 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 . It was later ruled that Judge Scullin, a visiting judge from New York, was outside his jurisdiction because he was only appointed to decide the Palmer case, not the follow - up Wrenn case . The Wrenn case was subsequently reassigned to a new judge who denied the request for a preliminary injunction . </P> <P> On May 17, 2016 a separate case (Grace v. District of Columbia) was decided by District Court Judge Richard J. Leon . The Court issued a preliminary injunction that the "good reason" requirement was likely be unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement . The order said that anyone who met the eligibility requirements for a concealed carry license absent the good reason stipulation cannot be denied the license; the order was not stayed originally, but was subsequently stayed on May 27, 2016 . </P>

Can you carry a concealed weapon in dc