Federal Judge rules D.C. is liable for arrests on gun offenses in the city...they violate 2nd Amendment...

[2aguy]

The Federal Judge said the arrests against people carrying guns in D.C violate the 2nd Amendment...

Dick Heller is probably laughing to himself today. Late yesterday, US District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that Washington, D.C. is liable for six wrongful arrests made in the years after the D.C. vs Heller Supreme Court decision was handed down. The individuals in question were arrested between 2012 and 2014 for carrying handguns in public.
----
Instead, Lamberth ruled, laws banning carrying firearms in public and nonresidents from registering firearms, and permitting the arrest of nonresidents for carrying weapons or ammunition without a license, “go the core of the Second Amendment.” The judge said the amendment preserves the “right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to long-standing restrictions,” quoting the 2017 opinion, Wrenn v. District of Columbia.

“The District violated the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights by arresting them, detaining them, prosecuting them, and seizing their guns based on an unconstitutional set of D.C. laws,” Lamberth wrote.

The ruling covered six individuals, but as many as 4500 people were arrested and 1900 prosecuted by the city during the years the laws were in place, so expect more claims for damages.

Federal Judge Rules Washington, DC is Liable for Post-Heller Wrongful Firearm Arrests - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ Dick Heller is probably laughing to himself today. Late yesterday, US District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that Washington, D.C. is liable for six wrongful arrests made in the years after the D.C. vs Heller Supreme Court decision was handed down. The individuals...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

Wrenn v D.C.

Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2017),

is a United States court case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the "individual right to carry common firearms beyond the home for self defense—even in densely populated areas, even for those lacking special self-defense needs—falls within the core of the Second Amendment’s protections."[1]

Wrenn v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Even I didn't know about this ruling.........

Here, the actual opinion...

Moreover,the Amendment’s text protects the right to “bear”as well as “keep”arms. For both reasons, it’s morenatural to viewthe Amendment’s core as includinga law-abiding citizen’s right to carry common firearms for self-defense beyond the home (subject againto relevant “longstanding” regulationslikebans on carrying “in sensitive places”). Id.at 626.
---

In that long preliminary analysis, the Court elaborates that to “bear” means 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.’” Id.at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United States,524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting)). Thatdefinition shows that the Amendment’s core must span, in the Court’s own words, the “right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Id. at 592 (emphasis added).
-----

Most of the relevant nineteenth-century cases, for example, assume the importance ofcarrying as well as possessing. Each puts anothercrackin the District’sargumentthat carrying was peripheral to the right protectedby the Amendment.

See Heller I, 554 U.S.at611-14, 629(citing Statev. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616-17 (1840) (allowing restrictions on the “manner of bearing arms” but not limits on carrying so severe “as to render [arms] wholly useless for the purpose of defence”); Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846) (invalidating a ban on carrying insofar as it prohibited “bearing arms openly”);Statev. Chandler, 5 La.Ann. 489 (1850) (observing that the Amendment shields a right to open carry); Johnson v. Tompkins, 13 F. Cas. 840, 852 (C.C.Pa. 1833) (findinginthe Second Amendment and a state analogue “a right to carry arms in defence of [one’s] property or person, and to use them, if . . . assailed with such force, numbers, or violence as made it necessary for [one’s] protection or safety”);Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 187(1871) (invalidating a ban on carrying pistols “publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances”));see alsoPeruta v. Cty. of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144,1174(9thCir.2014), vacated, 781 F.3d 1155, 1156-63(9th Cir. 2015) (citing Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, 93(1822) (striking down a prohibition on “wearing concealed arms”);Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, 403 (1859)
-----

So Heller I rejects their crucial premise.

“Andwith these cases off the table, the remaining cases speak with one voice”on the Amendment’s coverage of carrying as well as keeping arms.


Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1174.Under Heller I’s treatment of these and earlier cases andcommentaries, history matters, and here it favors the plaintiffs.

Wrenn v. District of Columbia, No. 16-7025 (D.C. Cir. 2017)

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging D.C. Code provisions directing the District's police chief to promulgate regulations limiting licenses for the concealed carry of handguns (the only sort of carrying the Code allows) to those showing a good reason to fear injury to their person or property or...

law.justia.com

 

[miketx]

The powers that be will refuse to hear the cases Just as they did with Trump and the stolen election.

 

[pknopp]

This is the fate of gun owners. You allow the cops to violate your rights and then fight it out in court........or so the argument has gone for others.

 

[Ivan88]

Any USA official that tries to disarm the American People is a traitor.
That means Lincoln, Roosevelt and others of their ilk were traitors.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

D.C. of Columbia is owned an operated by the fed so the 2nd Amendment applies fully to people in DC.

In the states, like Florida or Montana, the states can pass gun control laws. And have.

There's a Supreme Court case coming up in the fall about New York's gun law that's going to be interesting.

But yeah, D.C. isn't even a state.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The powers that be will refuse to hear the cases Just as they did with Trump and the stolen election.

If so. then the decision stands and the DC laws in question are struck as unconstitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

D.C. of Columbia is owned an operated by the fed so the 2nd Amendment applies fully to people in DC.
In the states, like Florida or Montana, the states can pass gun control laws. And have.

The 2nd has been incorporated against the states though thr 14th Amendment.

 

[pknopp]

The 2nd has been incorporated against the states though thr 14th Amendment.

Irrelevant to many when law enforcement wants to violate your rights.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Federal Judge said the arrests against people carrying guns in D.C violate the 2nd Amendment...

Dick Heller is probably laughing to himself today. Late yesterday, US District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that Washington, D.C. is liable for six wrongful arrests made in the years after the D.C. vs Heller Supreme Court decision was handed down. The individuals in question were arrested between 2012 and 2014 for carrying handguns in public.
----
Instead, Lamberth ruled, laws banning carrying firearms in public and nonresidents from registering firearms, and permitting the arrest of nonresidents for carrying weapons or ammunition without a license, “go the core of the Second Amendment.” The judge said the amendment preserves the “right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to long-standing restrictions,” quoting the 2017 opinion, Wrenn v. District of Columbia.

“The District violated the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights by arresting them, detaining them, prosecuting them, and seizing their guns based on an unconstitutional set of D.C. laws,” Lamberth wrote.

The ruling covered six individuals, but as many as 4500 people were arrested and 1900 prosecuted by the city during the years the laws were in place, so expect more claims for damages.

Federal Judge Rules Washington, DC is Liable for Post-Heller Wrongful Firearm Arrests - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ Dick Heller is probably laughing to himself today. Late yesterday, US District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that Washington, D.C. is liable for six wrongful arrests made in the years after the D.C. vs Heller Supreme Court decision was handed down. The individuals...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

Wrenn v D.C.

Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2017),

is a United States court case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the "individual right to carry common firearms beyond the home for self defense—even in densely populated areas, even for those lacking special self-defense needs—falls within the core of the Second Amendment’s protections."[1]

Wrenn v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Even I didn't know about this ruling.........

Here, the actual opinion...

Moreover,the Amendment’s text protects the right to “bear”as well as “keep”arms. For both reasons, it’s morenatural to viewthe Amendment’s core as includinga law-abiding citizen’s right to carry common firearms for self-defense beyond the home (subject againto relevant “longstanding” regulationslikebans on carrying “in sensitive places”). Id.at 626.
---

In that long preliminary analysis, the Court elaborates that to “bear” means 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.’” Id.at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United States,524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting)). Thatdefinition shows that the Amendment’s core must span, in the Court’s own words, the “right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Id. at 592 (emphasis added).
-----

Most of the relevant nineteenth-century cases, for example, assume the importance ofcarrying as well as possessing. Each puts anothercrackin the District’sargumentthat carrying was peripheral to the right protectedby the Amendment.

See Heller I, 554 U.S.at611-14, 629(citing Statev. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616-17 (1840) (allowing restrictions on the “manner of bearing arms” but not limits on carrying so severe “as to render [arms] wholly useless for the purpose of defence”); Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846) (invalidating a ban on carrying insofar as it prohibited “bearing arms openly”);Statev. Chandler, 5 La.Ann. 489 (1850) (observing that the Amendment shields a right to open carry); Johnson v. Tompkins, 13 F. Cas. 840, 852 (C.C.Pa. 1833) (findinginthe Second Amendment and a state analogue “a right to carry arms in defence of [one’s] property or person, and to use them, if . . . assailed with such force, numbers, or violence as made it necessary for [one’s] protection or safety”);Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 187(1871) (invalidating a ban on carrying pistols “publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances”));see alsoPeruta v. Cty. of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144,1174(9thCir.2014), vacated, 781 F.3d 1155, 1156-63(9th Cir. 2015) (citing Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, 93(1822) (striking down a prohibition on “wearing concealed arms”);Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, 403 (1859)
-----

So Heller I rejects their crucial premise.

“Andwith these cases off the table, the remaining cases speak with one voice”on the Amendment’s coverage of carrying as well as keeping arms.


Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1174.Under Heller I’s treatment of these and earlier cases andcommentaries, history matters, and here it favors the plaintiffs.

Wrenn v. District of Columbia, No. 16-7025 (D.C. Cir. 2017)

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging D.C. Code provisions directing the District's police chief to promulgate regulations limiting licenses for the concealed carry of handguns (the only sort of carrying the Code allows) to those showing a good reason to fear injury to their person or property or...

law.justia.com

Win

 

[badbob85037]

The Federal Judge said the arrests against people carrying guns in D.C violate the 2nd Amendment...

Dick Heller is probably laughing to himself today. Late yesterday, US District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that Washington, D.C. is liable for six wrongful arrests made in the years after the D.C. vs Heller Supreme Court decision was handed down. The individuals in question were arrested between 2012 and 2014 for carrying handguns in public.
----
Instead, Lamberth ruled, laws banning carrying firearms in public and nonresidents from registering firearms, and permitting the arrest of nonresidents for carrying weapons or ammunition without a license, “go the core of the Second Amendment.” The judge said the amendment preserves the “right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to long-standing restrictions,” quoting the 2017 opinion, Wrenn v. District of Columbia.

“The District violated the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights by arresting them, detaining them, prosecuting them, and seizing their guns based on an unconstitutional set of D.C. laws,” Lamberth wrote.

The ruling covered six individuals, but as many as 4500 people were arrested and 1900 prosecuted by the city during the years the laws were in place, so expect more claims for damages.

Federal Judge Rules Washington, DC is Liable for Post-Heller Wrongful Firearm Arrests - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ Dick Heller is probably laughing to himself today. Late yesterday, US District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that Washington, D.C. is liable for six wrongful arrests made in the years after the D.C. vs Heller Supreme Court decision was handed down. The individuals...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

Wrenn v D.C.

Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2017),

is a United States court case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the "individual right to carry common firearms beyond the home for self defense—even in densely populated areas, even for those lacking special self-defense needs—falls within the core of the Second Amendment’s protections."[1]

Wrenn v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Even I didn't know about this ruling.........

Here, the actual opinion...

Moreover,the Amendment’s text protects the right to “bear”as well as “keep”arms. For both reasons, it’s morenatural to viewthe Amendment’s core as includinga law-abiding citizen’s right to carry common firearms for self-defense beyond the home (subject againto relevant “longstanding” regulationslikebans on carrying “in sensitive places”). Id.at 626.
---

In that long preliminary analysis, the Court elaborates that to “bear” means 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.’” Id.at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United States,524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting)). Thatdefinition shows that the Amendment’s core must span, in the Court’s own words, the “right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Id. at 592 (emphasis added).
-----

Most of the relevant nineteenth-century cases, for example, assume the importance ofcarrying as well as possessing. Each puts anothercrackin the District’sargumentthat carrying was peripheral to the right protectedby the Amendment.

See Heller I, 554 U.S.at611-14, 629(citing Statev. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616-17 (1840) (allowing restrictions on the “manner of bearing arms” but not limits on carrying so severe “as to render [arms] wholly useless for the purpose of defence”); Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846) (invalidating a ban on carrying insofar as it prohibited “bearing arms openly”);Statev. Chandler, 5 La.Ann. 489 (1850) (observing that the Amendment shields a right to open carry); Johnson v. Tompkins, 13 F. Cas. 840, 852 (C.C.Pa. 1833) (findinginthe Second Amendment and a state analogue “a right to carry arms in defence of [one’s] property or person, and to use them, if . . . assailed with such force, numbers, or violence as made it necessary for [one’s] protection or safety”);Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 187(1871) (invalidating a ban on carrying pistols “publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances”));see alsoPeruta v. Cty. of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144,1174(9thCir.2014), vacated, 781 F.3d 1155, 1156-63(9th Cir. 2015) (citing Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, 93(1822) (striking down a prohibition on “wearing concealed arms”);Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, 403 (1859)
-----

So Heller I rejects their crucial premise.

“Andwith these cases off the table, the remaining cases speak with one voice”on the Amendment’s coverage of carrying as well as keeping arms.


Peruta, 742 F.3d at 1174.Under Heller I’s treatment of these and earlier cases andcommentaries, history matters, and here it favors the plaintiffs.

Wrenn v. District of Columbia, No. 16-7025 (D.C. Cir. 2017)

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging D.C. Code provisions directing the District's police chief to promulgate regulations limiting licenses for the concealed carry of handguns (the only sort of carrying the Code allows) to those showing a good reason to fear injury to their person or property or...

law.justia.com

When DC enacted their total gun ban it shot to murder capital of the nation. What did these gun grabbin worthless clowns then do? They then took the people's 4th Amendment no longer having to have a probable cause to search your car, home or anything else When leaders start making laws against the Constitution and it's Bill of Rights they are to be pulled from office and be tried by citizen courts. So why is Joe and every treasonous democRat alive? Come on! At least lets give these traitors a good beating they will be lucky to recover from. Oh well at least we have the satisfaction they will burn in Hell.