Fed Judge Rules DC Liable For Wrongful Arrests Post Heller

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Stoveman

    TV Personality
    Patriot Picket
    Sep 2, 2013
    28,223
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    Judge ruled yesterday that the District's arrest of six people (for now) carrying after the Heller decision violated their 2A rights. There were 1900 people prosecuted during this time period so this could be just the tip of the iceberg.

    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/f...ble-for-post-heller-wrongful-firearm-arrests/


    FTA:

    The city claimed the Second Amendment violating laws were necessary given the city’s “gun violence” problem and it couldn’t have known it was violating anyone’s rights until the post-Heller laws were struck down. Lamberth didn’t buy that argument.

    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.
     

    mranaya

    Task Force Sunny, 2009
    Jun 19, 2011
    996
    Hanover MD
    Wow, this is an encouraging article. The judge's comments were pretty clear, but the very end made me cringe: '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 . . ."

    What was meant by ". . . subject to long-standing restrictions . . ."?
     

    joppaj

    Sheepdog
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Apr 11, 2008
    46,650
    MD
    Wow, this is an encouraging article. The judge's comments were pretty clear, but the very end made me cringe: '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 . . ."

    What was meant by ". . . subject to long-standing restrictions . . ."?

    Not in his courtroom.
     

    TheBert

    The Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 10, 2013
    7,721
    Gaithersburg, Maryland

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,910
    WV
    In reality they should go back decades as DC (pre-Heller) essentially had a Hawaii may-issue system which never issued any permits. This fact was even mentioned in a court case, again pre-Heller. The name escapes me.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,341
    Messages
    7,277,709
    Members
    33,436
    Latest member
    DominicM

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom