Posted on 01/06/2023 6:07:52 AM PST by marktwain
On June 30, 2022, four plaintiffs filed suit against the District of Columbia, claiming their right to bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment, is being violated by the District of Columbia’s ban on the carry of concealed weapons on public transportation in the district. The case cites the previous cases of Heller, McDonald, Caetano, Wrenn, and Palmer. The crux of the argument presented from the complaint is this:
Under the Second Amendment, the District of Columbia retains the ability presumptively to regulate consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation the manner of carrying arms, including handguns, and may prohibit certain arms in narrowly defined sensitive places, and prohibit the carrying of arms that are not within the scope of Second Amendment’s protection,such as unusually dangerous arms, and disqualify specific, particularly dangerous individuals from carrying arms. See Bruen, slip. op.at 13;Heller,554 U.S. at 627;Wrenn, 864 F.3d at 662-63 & n. 5. However, when such regulations impinge on the ability of law-abiding persons to protect themselves and their loved ones, such laws are invalid unless supported by the text of the Second Amendment or by historical analogues existing at the time of the founding. Bruen, slip op. at 13.
On December 28, 2022, Federal Judge Randolf D. Moss of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied the plaintiffs in Angelo v. DC motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction on the District of Columbia’s ban on the carry of concealed weapons on public transportation. His decision depends on the District of Columbia’s precedence that a mere threat of prosecution is insufficient to establish standing to sue in the District of Columbia. From the opinion and order:
As a result, even under the standard set forth
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
That judge is spouting BS. That’s a big stretch.
“I hate guys like you. Therefore, you lack standing.”
Although the Court has been inconsistent, it has now settled upon the rule that, “at an irreducible minimum,” the constitutional requisites under Article III for the existence of standing are that the plaintiff must personally have:
1) suffered some actual or threatened injury;
2) that injury can fairly be traced to the challenged action of the defendant; and
3) that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.
The plaintiffs in the case allege the threatened injury is clear and traceable to the DC ban on the concealed carry of arms on public transportation.
The harm comes from law-abiding citizens not being able to exercise their inherent rights. I’m fairly certain the judge knows the difference between a Constitutional issue and a criminal one.
So you have to break the law first. It can’t be determined the law is wrong before, in DC? It has happened elsewhere.
My problem:
Frivolous lawsuits like these filed by those afraid to take a stand to support their alleged cause celebre and diluting our longstanding, unwavering argument.
If you’re going to file suit against the state for 2A infringement, then dag gammit: GO GET ARRESTED!
(I was prepared to before a judge intervened)
The process is the punishment. You shouldn’t have to risk criminal charges and conviction to challenge a clearly unConstitutional law.
While I appreciate your willingness to do so, it should not have to be that way.
If you un-conceal your weapon, you broke the concealed carry law, a separate issue. So continue to carry concealed. When you have to defend yourself, then you have standing.
Agreed. But certain steps must be taken to assure victory. There is ample precedent that this case would fail on the cited basis alone (lack of standing), such is the sorry state of our 'justice' system.
Sadly, some (maybe most) are unwilling to take 'certain steps' until it's too late. By then, it's a losing battle until a majority are willing to once again go as far as the Founders.
Criminals, attorneys and judges everywhere applauded the decision
Under that standard I can’t sue the government if they started rounding up and murdering Jews.
“No standing”.
Sorry, the EXISTENCE of injustice causes harm to all of us.
As soon as they are shot and killed by “teens,” they will have standing.
If these people lack standing, then why are brandishing, deadly menacing, making terroristic threats, and similar actions illegal? No one has suffered any harm. Why don’t you need to actually be shot or macheted or bombed before the perp can be charged?
It is interpretation of Article III of the Constitution, which defines the powers of the Supreme Court. Here is an article about standing at cornell.edu.
“If you un-conceal your weapon, you broke the concealed carry law, a separate issue. So continue to carry concealed. When you have to defend yourself, then you have standing.”
Or be like me, walking down a street in Austin, TX. A sharp-eyed UT officer notices a bulge on my hip, under a suit jacket (a lie, it turns out, someone upset at me at a business meeting told him when he saw me take my pistol out of the lock box a the entrance of the Texas Railroad Commission) and arrests me for “brandishing a weapon”.
It all got dismissed, but I enjoyed Travis County Jail for an evening.
Did the upset person pay a penalty for attempting to swat you?
It’s Austin and a UT cop, so no.
They were actively trying to arrest anyone with a CHL who walked by campus on a public sidewalk (back before CHL was honored on campus).
There is, however, now a ruling that a “bulge” is not “brandishing,” without more. So I got that accomplished.
Regulation /= Prohibition
Impeach the judge.
My brother was district director at the RRC in Midland in the ‘80’s. He was wanting to put a plugging fee on every oil well drilled. The oil companies knew he had to be stopped as he was about to be moved to Austin.
Christmas morning he goes out to get his newspaper and there was a turkey on his porch, no note or anything.
Monday morning he goes to work and one of the commissioners was in his office and fired him for taking a bribe or gift from one of the oil companies.
He took it to court and won, the judge saying it was an obvious setup. He had the choice of his job back or a cash settlement. He knew they would eventually get him so he took the cash.
Remember Lena Guerrero, running for a commissioner post? He had dirt on her and other commissioners. When she found out the reporter (who was digging up dirt on some of the commissioners) was about to release proof she was flying on oil company planes, she dropped out of the race. My brother had already revealed she was lying about her college degree.
My brother went into business (not the oil business) and did pretty well for himself.
Our family is from Amarillo, although I live on Lake Mathis now.
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.