• 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.

Judge Holds D.C. Liable for Violating Second Amendment Rights

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,041
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Gee, it's only been going on for six years...


"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.

Summary judgment for the plaintiffs on claim number I, the Second Amendment reads:​

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."

...
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,728
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
This is a typical case of a judge lacking any ability to engage critical thinking and is actually a fraud on the court.
He ruled in favor of the plaintiff as to claim I:
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 partial summary judgment and DENY the District's motion for summary judgment as to liability on Count I.
Then as to claim VI the judge ruled in favor of the defendant:
The District no doubt had a governmental interest in protecting the community from the potential violence wrought by unregistered firearms. It is undisputed that the District would release a firearm to a gun-owner in another jurisdiction if it was properly registered there. On balance, the District's interest in preventing unregistered firearms from circulating in the community greatly outweighs the intrusion caused by requiring plaintiffs to prove that the seized firearms were registered. The Court finds that no reasonable jury could conclude that retaining these firearms, lawfully seized, id. at 25, until plaintiffs prove they are registered somewhere violates their Fourth Amendment rights. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on Count VI is DENIED, and the District's motion for summary judgment on Count VI is GRANTED.
If claim I declares the seizure of their firearms unconstitutional, then the seizure was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, "unreasonable search and seizure". That being the case, then claim VI is in direct conflict with claim I. Logic cannot stand when no genuine dispute exists that the victim's lawfully possessed firearms that were illegally seized would require proof of registration. In other words, not a Fourth Amendment violation. Sophistry at its finest.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,728
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
When did "nominated" become "almost confirmed"? I don't remember that he even got to a hearing.
Once nominated you are in the confirmation process. Saying "almost confirmed" is somewhat exaggerated, but many times the way republicans' act confirmation could have easily happened.
 
Top