Four people seeking to overturn D.C.’s ban on carrying guns on Metro faced a setback when a federal judge recently ruled that none of them had standing to sue because they hadn’t been charged or prosecuted for bringing a gun on a bus or train.

The four people — three D.C. residents and one Virginia resident — filed the lawsuit in June 2022, arguing that while restrictions on carrying concealed handguns in certain public places are permissible, there’s a historical tradition of allowing people to carry on trains and other forms of public transportation. Metro follows local jurisdictions’ gun laws, so carrying on Metro is permitted in Virginia but not in D.C. or Maryland. The four plaintiffs requested that a judge grant a preliminary injunction stopping the city from enforcing the ban.

The lawsuit came shortly after a Supreme Court ruling that raised the bar for restrictions on guns, saying that governments will now have to show that their restrictions are rooted in the country’s historic traditions, and are not simply justified by a significant government interest.

In their response, attorneys for the city argued that not only did no such historic tradition exist, but also that Metrorail and Metrobuses are sensitive locations full of government workers and school children where concealed handguns could pose significant risks. They also said the four plaintiffs had no standing to bring the lawsuit.

In a 25-page ruling on Dec. 28, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction against the law, saying instead that he didn’t think they even had standing to sue.

“No plaintiff in this case has been arrested and prosecuted — or threatened with arrest or prosecution or with the imposition of a civil penalty — for violating the provision of D.C. law at issue here,” he wrote. “Plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating that the Court is likely to conclude that they have standing, but have offered no evidence indicating that the [Metropolitan Police Department] has had any contact with them regarding the law at issue; that they have contacted the MPD or [Metro Transit Police Department]; or, more generally, that they have any other reason to believe that they face a threat of prosecution.”

“Indeed, when asked at oral argument, Plaintiffs’ counsel was unable to identify any case in which an individual licensed to carry a handgun has ever been prosecuted simply for carrying a concealed handgun on a Metrorail train or a Metrobus,” Moss added.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not respond to a request for comment. But this isn’t the only legal challenge they have filed against the city’s restrictive gun laws. In another lawsuit filed last June, they challenged the existing restriction on how many bullets a person legally carrying a concealed handgun can have with them. And in another lawsuit, they challenged the ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines. Both suits are pending. Separately, three Black men are suing the city for denying them concealed-carry permits because of prior arrests.

Litigation of this sort has largely shaped D.C.’s existing gun laws, as well as the legal landscape nationally. Most prominently, the city’s former ban on handguns led to the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision, which declared an individual right to own a handgun and pushed the city to allow handgun ownership. Six years later, a federal judge overturned the city’s ban on carrying handguns outside the home, and a subsequent ruling declared that D.C. couldn’t require residents to show a good reason to carry a concealed handgun.

D.C. now permits people to apply for concealed-carry permits. Still, someone carrying a concealed handgun cannot enter government buildings; schools or universities; polling places; libraries; hospitals; public transportation; stadiums or arenas; many business that serves alcohol; the National Mall, U.S. Capitol, and around the White House; or within 1,000 feet of a protest or dignitary who receives police protection.

This story was updated to reflect that the lawsuit was not dismissed, but rather that a judge denied the request for a preliminary injunction.