This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Posted on 10/13/2021 7:11:33 AM PDT by marktwain
On 15 May, 2015, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the government of the District of Columbia, for violating the constitutional rights of people who had been arrested before the Wrenn case was decided on July 25, 2021. The lawsuit was brought under the 1983 Civil Rights Act.
There originally were 10 claims. Judge Lambert struck down seven of those claims in May of 2019 in a memorandum and opinion.
Three claims, numbers I, III, and VI remained. On September 29, 2021, Judge Lambert granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on claims I and III, and granted summary judgment for the defendants (the District of Columbia) on claim VI.
In sum, the plaintiffs were arrested, detained, and had their guns seized under a gun control regime that completely banned carrying handguns in public. That fact is undisputed.
Accordingly, this Court finds that there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to the District’s liability on Claim 1. Construing the facts most favorably to the defendants, 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. This Court will GRANT plaintiffs’ motion for a partial summary judgement and DENY the District’s motion for summary judgement as to liability on Count 1.
Claim number III, the Fifth Amendment claims, was about equal protection rights and the right to travel. Judge Lambert granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on these points as well. From the decision:
B. There is No Genuine Dispute of Material Fact Regarding Plaintiffs Fifth Amendment Claims, and No Reasonable July Could Find for the District
Judge Lambert applies some excellent logic here.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Two out of three is good enough to put this one in the “win” category.
The system can still, occasionally, work.
DC is liable for the violation of Second Amendment rights...
Looks good on paper but what happens next? My guess is nothing when the mayor and all of the representatives against the 2nd amendment are fined or jailed.
Unless and until the elected leaders of DC are held personally liable nothing will change. Jail a few Council members and the Mayor for contempt and prosecute them under 18USC242.
Then sue them in Federal Civil Courts for deprivation of Civil Rights and bankrupt them.
Nothing will change until that happens.
L
What you said. BUMP!!
That is absolutely necessary. All elected officials that violate defined constitutional rights should be jails. Fake constitutional rights that violate real constitutional rights needs to be dealt with harshly.
The District of Columbia will decide to appeal to the next level, which would be the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. They may not want to appeal, as then the case would become precedent.
If they do not appeal, then the lawyers would advertise for other people who would be elegible for damages. The estimate are about 4,500 are eligible. In the meantime, the lawyers might try to make a settlement with D.C.
The settlement might be many thousands of dollars per individual, and perhaps millions in punitive damages.
But, it is all other people's money. I expect President Biden and Nancy Pelosi have a few hundred million they can spare, if it becomes necessary. After all, DC is a federal district...
A couple points - one is damages (if any), and the other is appeal.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.171789/gov.uscourts.dcd.171789.141.0_1.pdf
Lambert finds all the action by the government was lawful. seizure of firearms was lawful, and the plaintiffs don’t get them back. “I tis undisputed that registration of firearms is constitutional.”
Surviving claims go to trial. I don;t foresee any significant “win” for plaintiffs. They are now out all sorts of time and emotional investment, and they will get none of that back.
Let me know when they lock up a DC official......
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
He clearly says the arrests were violations of Second Amendment rights, and violations of the Fifth Amendment for counts I and III.
I’m inferring it from the right of the state to seize the weapons. That seizure is pursuant to a violation of law. Small reach from there to find the arrest “lawful.”
Plus, page 8, second half, “there is no question that the unconsitutional action here, if there was any, was executed pusuant to an ordinace ‘officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers.’”
Lambert’s discusison is I think purely academic, and would be decided opposite if the claim was agains the police for wrongful arrest. The arrest was pursuent to statutes not yet declared unconsitutional. Those laws no longer exist, so Lambert can safely cast shade on them.
What are the damages / remedy, do you know? I don’t.
btt
That is count VI, where Judge Lambert grants summary judgement to the Defendants, on that point.
Maybe we aren’t looking at the same page. III. Discussion A. ... no reasonable jury could find for the district. That’s summary judgement to plaintiffs Smith, et al.
The legal summary amounts to lawful but unconstitutional. Don;t ask me how that works, I think this decision is incoherent nonsense. The funciton is to saddle DC with a trivial damage, and get this issue out of their hair. Lamberth is free to criticize the since-abandoned criminal statutes.
Count VI is the retention of firerms claim. Lamberth picks that up starting on page 16.
Taxpayers will pay for their defense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.