From [HERE] The Biden administration is urging a federal judge to uphold Washington’s ban on individuals carrying firearms on the city’s crime-ridden local public transit system popularly known as the DC Metro.

The lawsuit is one of many filed nationwide challenging gun laws after the Supreme Court’s landmark 6–3 ruling on June 23 recognizing a constitutional right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. The opinion states that to ban concealed weapons in a specific place, “the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation.”

The plaintiffs—city residents Gregory T. Angelo, Tyler Yzaguirre, and Robert M. Miller, along with Fairfax, Virginia, resident Cameron M. Erickson—filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on June 30.

Judge Randolph D. Moss, an Obama appointee, is presiding over the case. The plaintiffs are suing the District of Columbia and Metropolitan Police Department Chief Robert J. Contee III. Yzaguirre is president of the nonprofit Second Amendment Institute.

The four men, all holders of concealed pistol carry licenses issued by Contee’s office, are regular riders of the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, which runs bus and subway lines in the greater Washington area, including in northern Virginia and Montgomery and Prince George’s counties in Maryland. [MORE]

Although, the Supreme Court made it clear that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in public, liberal puppeticians and freedumb believers work tirelessly to make said inalienable right illusory. The court clearly stated;

Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms. As we explained in Heller, the “textual elements” of the Second Amendment’s operative clause— “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be in- fringed”—“guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. Heller further confirmed that the right to “bear arms” refers to the right to “wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.”

This definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. Most gun owners do not wear a holstered pistol at their hip in their bedroom or while sitting at the dinner table. Although individuals often “keep” firearms in their home, at the ready for self-defense, most do not “bear” (i.e., carry) them in the home beyond moments of actual confrontation. To confine the right to “bear” arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections.

Moreover, confining the right to “bear” arms to the home would make little sense given that self-defense is “the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 599; see also McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767. After all, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home.

Although we remarked in Heller that the need for armed self-defense is perhaps “most acute” in the home, id., at 628, we did not suggest that the need was insignificant else- where. Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the home than in it. See Moore v. Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933, 937 (CA7 2012) (“[A] Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower”). The text of the Second Amendment reflects that reality.

The Second Amendment’s plain text thus presumptively guarantees petitioners Koch and Nash a right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense.