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 ...
With our activist DAs out there, it won't be for some misdemeanor jaywalking charge either. They will load it up with resisting arrest, menacing, illegal carry, maybe even assault with a deadly weapon if the person were arrested with a concealed weapon and bumped into someone on a crowded bus.
That's a lot of weighty charges to have to defend just for the principle of creating standing to sue over the 2nd amendment.
-PJ
Depends on what you classify as ‘cost’.
Your life savings, your house, your job, your health care, your family's security...
-PJ
My justifiable cost is much higher.
Just sayin’.
Hang ‘em.🤨
Why would he want a fee to plug a well? That’s a good thing.
Anything to get rid of orphaned wells is a good thing.
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.