• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

DC Court of Appeals Strikes Down Law Making It a Felony to Be Present in a Car with..

casper

Guest
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
266
Location
Holland, MI.
MSP doesn't want anyone to carry a fire arm, CPL or not. It's a good thing we still have the Constitution.
 
Last edited:

casper

Guest
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
266
Location
Holland, MI.
It depends what branch you deal with. But if they had their way, they would be the only ones armed. Safer that way ya know.:rolleyes:
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/11-CF-589.pdf

opinion directly linked above


I see issues with the opinion. First it says that people wouldn't know about the law but then says that gun owners would certainly be required to know gun laws. I would see that the law would be ruled by a higher court as being constitutional but that this defendant (if nothing in the record in respect to gun ownership has been established) is not guilty for the reasons given.

Its a screwed up law for sure.

Currently a minor victory, very minor at this point in time.

I'm sure to the defendant is a huge victory...and it is, for him. So far.

I could see this final result: that the affirmative defense part being continued to be struck down ; but that the rest would survive. If the law goes to the next step in appeals.

So in this law...if you own a gun (not that its YOUR GUN unlawfully being transported), you should be aware of the law - if you don't, not.

The opinion of this court may be reversed on the ground that they provide - maybe re-struck down on other 14th amendment issues of equal protection - maybe.

And it highlights another issue I have with gun registration and forms related to guns (ATF 4473, DPS 3 forms in my state): these forms provide evidence in cases like this that you should have been aware of the gun laws.

And also highlights the advice: do not talk to the cops ...
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
As the Supreme Court explained in Lambert
v. California,
1
it is incompatible with due process to convict a person of a crime
based on the failure to take a legally required action—a crime of omission—if he
had no reason to believe he had a legal duty to act, or even that his failure to act
was blameworthy. The fundamental constitutional vice of § 22-2511 is that it
criminalizes entirely innocent behavior—merely remaining in the vicinity of a
firearm in a vehicle, which the average citizen would not suppose to be wrongful
(let alone felonious)—without requiring the government to prove that the
defendant had notice of any legal duty to behave otherwise. This is a defect that
we cannot cure by interpreting the statutory language.

so I guess ignorance of the law can be an excuse...
 

22Luke36

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
472
Location
Above and Beyond.
I would see that the law would be ruled by a higher court as being constitutional

If we are talking about 750.227 and 750.231a, then I don't see how any court could rule it constitutional.

Article 1, Section 6 says clearly that "Every person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state".

The law says that a person cannot have a weapon in the car, or in the case of a firearm, specifies how it must be kept. In following the law, even counting those who have a CPL, the majority of citizens are being denied the right to "keep and bear arms for the defense of him/herself", while in their or another private vehicle.

Since there are 9 million residents, and only 350,000 CPL holders, the argument to the law being constitutionally valid when put up against numbers like that is a weak one at best.
 
Top