Trump Administration Suing D.C. Over Restrictive Gun Control Laws
“The United States of America brings this lawsuit to protect the rights that have been guaranteed for 234 years and which the Supreme Court has explicitly reaffirmed several times over the last two decades”
Trump’s Department of Justice has launched a lawsuit against the District of Columbia over what it says are restrictive gun control laws. It is ironic that a nation known for guaranteeing the right to bear arms has such laws on the books in its capital city.
The suit appears to focus mainly on the AR-15.
The Associated Press reports:
The Trump administration is suing the District of Columbia over its gun laws
The Trump administration is suing the local government of Washington, D.C., over its gun laws, alleging that restrictions on certain semiautomatic weapons run afoul of Second Amendment rights.
The U.S. Department of Justice filed its lawsuit Monday in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, naming Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department and outgoing Chief of Police Pamela Smith as defendants and setting up another potentially seismic clash on how broadly the courts interpret individual gun possession rights.
“The United States of America brings this lawsuit to protect the rights that have been guaranteed for 234 years and which the Supreme Court has explicitly reaffirmed several times over the last two decades,” the Justice Department states.
It’s the second such lawsuit the administration has filed this month: The Justice Department also is suing the U.S. Virgin Islands, alleging the U.S. territory is obstructing and systematically denying American citizens the right to possess and carry guns…
The Justice Department asserts that the District is imposing unconstitutional bans on AR-15s and other semiautomatic weapons the administration says are legal to posses under the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller precedent, which also originated from a dispute over weapons restrictions in the nation’s capital.
This is part of a press release from the DOJ:
Today, the Justice Department sued the District of Columbia’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), alleging that the District government and MPD unconstitutionally ban the AR-15 and many other firearms protected under the Second Amendment. The District’s gun laws require anyone seeking to own a gun to register it with D.C. Metro Police. However, the D.C. Code provides a broad registration ban on numerous firearms — an unconstitutional incursion into the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens seeking to own protected firearms for lawful purposes. MPD’s current pattern and practice of refusing to register protected firearms is forcing residents to sue to protect their rights and to risk facing wrongful arrest for lawfully possessing protected firearms.
“Today’s action from the Department of Justice’s new Second Amendment Section underscores our ironclad commitment to protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Washington, DC’s ban on some of America’s most popular firearms is an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment — living in our nation’s capital should not preclude law-abiding citizens from exercising their fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”
A new division in the DOJ Civil Rights Division announced earlier this month may have foreshadowed this development.
From FOX News:
DOJ promises ‘a lot more action’ on gun rights with new Second Amendment enforcement section
Department of Justice (DOJ) official Harmeet Dhillon announced that her agency is unveiling a gun rights-focused section on Monday, promising Americans that “a lot more action” on gun rights enforcement will be taken.
Dhillon, who works as an assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, said that her division had started a Second Amendment section this month.
“I’m really excited about this,” said Dhillon. “For the first time, the DOJ Civil Rights Division and the DOJ at large will be protecting and advancing our citizens’ right to bear arms as part of our civil rights work.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
As a poular gun law youtuber says are bipolar DOJ at it again, but this time in a positive manner
There is a method to their Bi-polarity, even if I dont’ like it.
The are the US Governments attorney and as such have an obligation to defend a law passed by Congress and signed by a President. They don’t get to say no, or to puposely throw the case, just as your or my attorney can’t decide not to give their best effort when we are guilty.
However, they are actively going after local/state laws with vigor, even where those law are similar to a federal one. The Virgin Island and DC cases close the circle a bit, as the feds can be the plaintif acting as “the Peoples” attorney against a sub federal entity.
Yes, they do. If the Solicitor General is of the opinion that a federal law is invalid, he has no duty to defend it. He may decline and the court will appoint someone else to defend it in his place. That he chooses to defend these laws is on the administration.
When it comes to fundamental rights I’m an absolutist. There shouldn’t be a single law in the United States that speaks to a citizen and his firearm.
Not one.
I want the government completely and entirely out of the firearm enforcement business. As with most things, they are terrible at it, they only restrict the law abiding and generally make the issue of violence with firearms worse.
And for those who disagree and offer up as an example that felons shouldn’t ever possess firearms I might reply that as felons they have already demonstrated a lack of respect for the law; I just want to preserve my inalienable right to shoot back. Ironically, my shooting back is a far more effective deterrent to crime than our dysfunctional legal system.
Imagine having to register your religion with the government and needing a permit to go to church. Government has no business knowing if, how, when, or where you’re exercising any of your natural rights.
Or which one of us is exempted from the 13th Amendment?
You’re point is spot on.
Many time I have pointed out the missing parallel with the 13th. It is an insulting and inflammatory argument, but one that is good at illuminating the problems. Imagine subjecting people with a particular skin color to the same sort of rules as apply to the 2nd. No “assault Negroes” … they need to be turned in and incinerated. No large capacity Negroes — whatever those are. No interstate transport of Negroes, and Negros not allowed in public places. Must pay a fee to have the 13th apply, and take a course in law. No shoes permitted without paying a separate $200 tax, which takes 300 days, and requires separate registration. Disputes over what is a shoe subjects you to a $2M fine and 10 years in jail. Negros over certain size are just prohibited, as are Negros below a certain size. No group of Negros can appear at any organized event, whatever that might be, if all wear the same colored shirt. And so forth. Just imagine the denial of civil rights under color of authority…
If a politician isn’t perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash — for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything — without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn’t your friend no matter what he tells you.
If he isn’t genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody’s permission, he’s a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.
If he doesn’t want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?
If he makes excuses about obeying a law he’s sworn to uphold and defend — the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights — do you want to entrust him with anything?
If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil — like “Constitutionalist” — when you insist that he account for himself, hasn’t he betrayed his oath, isn’t he unfit to hold office, and doesn’t he really belong in jail?
— L. NEIL SMITH
Neil’s an extremist, but he’s not wrong.
Probability Broach, anyone?
Oops, I forgot that he died four years ago. I had heard, but I forgot. It’s been a chaotic time. RIP.
As with all the rights protected by the constitution, they have parameters. Congress can make no law abridging the freedom of speech, but what kind of law does abridge it? Defamation laws don’t. Nor do laws against fraud, true threats, incitement (as narrowly defined in Brandenburg), perjury, breach of copyright, and a very few other things. Since such laws don’t abridge the underlying freedom, they’re not included in the first amendment’s absolute ban on laws that do abridge it.
Likewise there are laws that don’t infringe the RKBA. We know there are, because at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted, which we know was a time when people took the RKBA seriously, there were such laws, and no one protested at them or claimed they infringed the right. And since they don’t infringe it, they are not included in the 2A’s absolute ban on laws that do.
Again, the exceptions are not to the amendments but to the underlying right that the amendments protect. Therefore one should not expect them to be mentioned in the amendments themselves. It takes the courts to recognize whether a challenged law violates the relevant amendment, or is consistent with the amendment because it doesn’t violate the underlying right.
Most gun laws do abridge the RKBA. There are some that don’t, and the courts have to decide which is which.
It’s as if someone finally figured out the main role of government is to protect our rights.
Two cheers for the DOJ. This administration’s view of the 2A seems to be schizophrenic. It is happy to attack state and local laws and governments that are infringing the RKBA, but at the same time vigorously defends federal laws that do the same.
It’s as if it has reversed the pre-Macdonald status. Before Macdonald the official state of the law was that the 2A applied only to the USA, not to the states. Macdonald changed that, and said it was incorporated into the 14A, just like the 1A, 4A, 5A, 6A, and 8A. But the Trump administration seems to believe the exact opposite: that the 2A applies only to the states and not to the USA! That’s perverse.
It’s not surprising to me that DC would attempt to outlaw the AR-15, one of the most popular civilian (NOT an assault rifle btw) rifles in the US.
Their local gun-control rules are historically even more crazy and illogical than the average crazy and illogical gun-control stance. At one point they tried an end-run around the 2nd amendment by limiting “legal” guns to a specific approved list – and argued they could legally ban the exact same gun / rifle on their “approved” list IF IT WAS THE WRONG COLOR.
“argued they could legally ban the exact same gun / rifle on their “approved” list IF IT WAS THE WRONG COLOR.”
Didn’t you know? Almost all DC laws and regulations are color-specific.
Leave a Comment