{"id":88936,"date":"2022-12-30T11:56:25","date_gmt":"2022-12-30T17:56:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=88936"},"modified":"2022-12-30T11:56:25","modified_gmt":"2022-12-30T17:56:25","slug":"88936","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=88936","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Federal Judge Tosses Lawsuit Opposing Concealed-Carry Ban on D.C. Metro, Finding Challengers Did Not Show \u2018Any Threat\u2019 of Prosecution<\/a><\/p>\n

A federal judge\u00a0threw out a challenge<\/a> to D.C.\u2019s concealed pistol law after four D.C.-area residents failed to include a basic part of their case. Although the challengers made multiple arguments about the use of guns in 1600s New England, they included nothing to show that they were \u2014 or ever would be \u2014 personally affected by the statute. Gregory T. Angelo<\/strong>,\u00a0Tyler Yzaguirre<\/strong>, and\u00a0Cameron M. Erickson<\/strong>\u00a0live in the District of Columbia, and\u00a0Robert M. Miller<\/strong>\u00a0lives in Virginia. The four hold licenses to carry firearms, and say that they regularly use public transportation including the D.C. Metro. The plaintiffs waged a\u00a0federal lawsuit<\/a>\u00a0challenging the constitutionality of\u00a0D.C. Code \u00a7 7-2509.07(a)(6)<\/a>, which prohibits the carrying concealed firearms in \u201csensitive areas,\u201d which include D.C. public transportation, and levies a penalty of fine or imprisonment up to 180 days for violators.<\/p>\n

In their 35-page complaint, the four alleged that if it were not for the statute, they would carry their concealed handguns on the Metro and buses for self-defense. They said that because of the statute, they now refrain from doing so because they fear arrest and prosecution.<\/p>\n

Taking cues from the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling in\u00a0Bruen,\u00a0<\/em>the challengers pointed to Justice\u00a0Clarence Thomas\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0recently established test that gun laws must be \u201cconsistent with this Nation\u2019s historical tradition of firearm regulation.\u201d<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs reached back centuries in support of their argument that there is \u201cno basis to label the Metro as a sensitive area,\u201d providing an extensive history of gun law anecdotes going back to the early 1600s in the U.S. and several hundred years prior in Europe. Plaintiffs allowed that, \u201cPublic transportation systems did not exist as they do today at the founding of the nation,\u201d but argued that because, \u201ca March 9, 1636 ordinance provided that every person above 18 years of age (except magistrates and elders of the churches) were ordered to \u2018come to public assemblies with their muskets,’\u201d that 2022 concealed-carry restrictions conflict with our nation\u2019s founding principles.<\/p>\n

The D.C. law, said the plaintiffs, interferes with their Second Amendment right of self-defense and goes far beyond any limits imposed by Supreme Court precedent.<\/p>\n

They asked the court to issue either a preliminary or a permanent injunction, restricting enforcement of the statute.<\/p>\n

U.S. District Judge\u00a0Randolph Moss<\/strong>, a\u00a0Barack Obama\u00a0<\/strong>appointee, rejected their argument, finding that the plaintiffs couldn\u2019t prove harm. They provided no evidence that the law has been used to prosecute\u00a0anyone<\/em>, much less the four of them.<\/p>\n

Moss wrote in the court\u2019s 25-page ruling that in order to establish Article III standing, all plaintiffs must demonstrate some kind of \u201cinjury in fact.\u201d In other words, it is not enough for a plaintiff to simply disagree with a law \u2014 that plaintiff must be\u00a0actually harmed<\/em>\u00a0by the law. That\u2019s where the four plaintiffs fell short.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Moss pointed out that, \u201cNo plaintiff in this case has been arrested and prosecuted \u2014 or threatened with arrest or prosecution or with the imposition of a civil penalty \u2014 for violating the provision of D.C. law at issue here.\u201d Moreover, none of the plaintiffs even alleged that they have either been \u201csingled out\u201d or were somehow \u201cuniquely targeted\u201d for prosecution, said Moss. Without such a showing, the plaintiffs could not sufficiently establish their right to bring the lawsuit.<\/p>\n

According to the Moss, the case\u2019s shortcomings went farther. Not only did the plaintiffs fail to show that they were especially at risk of prosecution, but they did not show that\u00a0anyone<\/em>\u00a0was at risk of prosecution.<\/p>\n

\u201cPlaintiffs have failed to proffer any evidence relating to any threat or risk of enforcement,\u201d wrote Moss. To underscore the omission, Moss recounted exchanges from oral argument in which the court appeared to prompt the plaintiffs\u2019 lawyer to provide the kind of evidence that could have supported the claim:<\/p>\n

Indeed, when asked at oral argument, Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel was unable to identify any case in which an individual licensed to carry a handgun has ever been prosecuted simply for carrying a concealed handgun on a Metrorail train or a Metrobus. Instead, Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel merely speculated that those carrying concealed handguns often pat their sides (to confirm that they have their guns with them) and that, by doing so, they might provide a tell for law enforcement officers and thereby invite arrest.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Moss also called out the attorney for a general response to the specific question of threat of enforcement. Moss said that during colloquy with the court, plaintiffs\u2019 counsel answered that the Metropolitan Police Department \u201cinvariably arrests those who violate any of \u2018the myriad of firearms regulations\u2019 in the District of Columbia,\u201d but noted that, \u201cNeither statement by counsel, however, is evidence, and the evidence that Plaintiffs have offered says nothing about the risk of criminal or civil enforcement of \u00a7 7-2509.07(a)(6).\u201d<\/p>\n

Moss denied both requested injunctions.<\/p>\n

Counsel for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to request for comment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Federal Judge Tosses Lawsuit Opposing Concealed-Carry Ban on D.C. Metro, Finding Challengers Did Not Show \u2018Any Threat\u2019 of Prosecution A federal judge\u00a0threw out a challenge to D.C.\u2019s concealed pistol law after four D.C.-area residents failed to include a basic part of their case. Although the challengers made multiple arguments about the use of guns in … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-88936","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-crap-for-brains","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88936","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=88936"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88936\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":88937,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88936\/revisions\/88937"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=88936"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=88936"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=88936"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}