Thus, in light of Bruen, the effect of the challenged provisions is an immediate constitutional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment right to carry a handgun for self-defense in public. Plaintiffs can no longer exercise this right by carrying their firearms at locations they were accustomed to visiting in their day-to-day lives and in ways law-abiding gun owners routinely do. Additionally, if they were to do so, Plaintiffs would face an “imminent” threat of prosecution, which the State acknowledged at oral argument. [Tr. at 27.] Accordingly, Plaintiffs have satisfied the irreparable injury prong justifying injunctive relief.
33. Other Interested Parties and the Public Interest. Finally, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that since injunctive relief will only impact individuals who have already gone through the State’s vetting process to obtain a permit to carry a handgun, other interested parties will not be harmed by the relief requested. [Pls.’ Br. at 33.] And after all, “neither the Government nor the public generally can claim an interest in the enforcement of an unconstitutional law.” Am. C.L. Union v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 240, 251 n.11 (3d Cir. 2003), aff’d and remanded, 542 U.S. 656 (2004).
It is not surprising that a District of Columbia Court sided with the Defendant-State under similar circumstances. The District of Columbia was where the Government attempted to completely ban the possession of handguns, even within the home. That law was held to be unconstitutional in the Heller case.