WV Group Sues Cities For Banning Guns on City Property

Patrick · Jan 25, 2011

Members of the West Virginia Citizens Defense League filed a civil complaint in U.S. District Court on Monday challenging handgun laws in the three Kanawha County cities. Attorney Jim Mullins, who filed the complaint, alleges the cities' laws violate the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right for citizens to keep and bear arms.

All three cities ban the carrying of handguns on city property. Charleston also has a city ordinance requiring a three-day waiting period before someone can buy a gun within city limits, and limits gun purchases to one per month.

Keep in mind WV is in our Fourth Circuit.

I haven't found the complaint yet, but it looks like they are challenging waiting periods and one-per-month limits. Success here would affect MD if it gets to the Circuit Level.

Charleston Mayor Danny Jones was standing beside Charleston's ordinances.

"If it's illegal for us to do it [ban guns on city property], then it's illegal for the state Capitol to do it, it's illegal for the county courts and it's illegal for the federal courts to do it," Jones said. "I think we should be able to restrict firearms on our own property."

He cannot see the difference between a court house and a city parking garage. Education is going to happen slowly, one court case at a time.

hvymax · Jan 25, 2011

God bless America. Hopefully this jams another canopener in the Anti's armor.

ezliving · Jan 25, 2011

Charleston Mayor Danny Jones used to be Sheriff of Kanawha County.

Patrick · Jan 25, 2011

ezliving said:
Charleston Mayor Danny Jones used to be Sheriff of Kanawha County.

Surprise. All three cities being sued are in that county.

Storm40 · Jan 25, 2011

"I think we should be able to restrict firearms on our own property."

Um. it's not YOUR property, it belongs to the citizens of the state. you know, the people you supposedly work for? them. it's theirs.

hvymax · Jan 25, 2011

Storm40 said:
Um. it's not YOUR property, it belongs to the citizens of the state. you know, the people you supposedly work for? them. it's theirs.

As long as they submit to his benevolent rule.

OnTarget · Jan 26, 2011

WV Citizen Defense League lawsuits - city ordinances

"The West Virginia Citizen Defense League filed lawsuits in federal court in Charleston and Martinsburg that challenge a range of city ordinances in the municipalities of Charleston, South Charleston, Dunbar, and Martinsburg. WVCDL General Counsel Jim Mullins says the most serious provisions forbid law abiding citizens from carrying firearms legally with concealed carry permits on city property."

http://www.wvmetronews.com/index.cfm?func=displayfullstory&storyid=42772

swinokur · Jan 26, 2011

I'm gonna send them some dough.

"Who's with me? Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"

krucam · Jan 27, 2011

These will be added shortly to the 2A Case Index I keep, in the mean time, the data I have harvested for these 2 is as follows:

West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. v. City of Martinsburg
West Virginia Northern District
Case: 3:11-cv-00005-JPB
Filed: 1/24/2011
Docket: http://ia600405.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.wvnd.27115/gov.uscourts.wvnd.27115.docket.html
Martinsburg Complaint: http://www.wvcdl.org/litigation/Martinsburg/Complaint.pdf

West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. et al v. City of Charleston et al
West Virginia Southern District
Case: 2:11-cv-00048
Filed: 1/24/2011
Docket: http://ia700400.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.wvsd.67217/gov.uscourts.wvsd.67217.docket.html
Charleston Complaint: http://www.wvcdl.org/litigation/Charleston/Complaint.pdf

Always good to have another group helping to fight the fight (as long as they're successful) :innocent0

West Virginia Citizens Defense League website: http://www.wvcdl.org/

Threeband · Jan 27, 2011

Doesn't West Virginia have state preemption? If so, shouldn't that be the basis of the suit?

Norton · Jan 27, 2011

Threeband said:
Doesn't West Virginia have state preemption? If so, shouldn't that be the basis of the suit?

There were several localities that were grandfathered.

WV is doing a good job of following the "get a bill passed and go back and fix it later" philosophy rather than taking the "all or nothing approach".

Gray Peterson · Jan 27, 2011

Norton said:
There were several localities that were grandfathered.

WV is doing a good job of following the "get a bill passed and go back and fix it later" philosophy rather than taking the "all or nothing approach".

They may get full and complete preemption this year anyway. I don't believe that this suit was intended to go all the way to SCOTUS. I think it's more a way of bringing attention to the problems of lack of preemption, which the Legislature may actually do.

OnTarget · Jan 27, 2011

I posted this earlier this week about same subject:

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=50373

krucam · Jun 24, 2011

MTD DENIED

In the Martinsburg WV case (Charleston is the 2nd of 2) case, State Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss based on your typical "Standing" grounds. This was on 3/29.

WVCDL v. Martinsburg Docket: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.wvnd.27115/gov.uscourts.wvnd.27115.docket.html

Last week, the MTD was DENIED by Chief Judge Bailey.

2011-06-17 16 0 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS denying 12 First MOTION to Dismiss Complaint. The parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to comment and/or object to this Court abstaining or deferring action in this case, pending resolution of the state law issues in state court. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 6/17/2011. (cwm) (Entered: 06/17/2011) 2011-06-24 16:45:57 3349a03c4bbf0

Item 16 MTD Denial

Some sweetness from the decision:

The plaintiff has, however, appended a declaration to its response (Doc. 14-1), which identifies one member of the plaintiff who (1) resides in Berkeley County; (2) is licensed to carry a concealed weapon; (3) regularly carries a handgun for personal protection, unless prohibited by federal, state or local law or regulation; (4) is a regular visitor to a restaurant located in a city-owned building; and (5) would carry a handgun while visiting City-owned buildings were it not for the defendants’ ordinance.

Based upon the Complaint and the affidavit, this Court finds that the plaintiff has established standing to proceed with this action. This Court finds the threat of prosecution to be real. This Court is confident that if one of the plaintiff’s members attempts to enter certain of the City’s buildings, that person will be stopped and prohibited from entering or arrested.

There is little else a person who wishes to challenge this ordinance can do, other than violate the law. This, as noted above, is not required.

Accordingly, this Court finds that the plaintiff has standing and the Defendants’ Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) is DENIED.

Half-cocked · Jun 24, 2011

"I think we should be able to restrict firearms on our own property."

Well, if they feel they can suspend the Constitution on "their" property, I hereby notify everyone that I'm suspending the Constitution on my property.

First order of business... I'm invoking Prima Noctis.

foxtrapper · Jun 24, 2011

Oh goody, my dad and mom can now pat down customers of mine and search their vehicles without their consent. Hopefully they will deputize me so I can make arrests for unlawful gum and candy or whatever. I also guess the DNR can go F off, my parents now make all the game laws and rules. Fox trapping, and deer hunting with any semi auto handguns you want, is going to be open year round. In addition, they will lease 1 acre for natural gas exploration.

press1280 · Jun 24, 2011

Gray Peterson said:
They may get full and complete preemption this year anyway. I don't believe that this suit was intended to go all the way to SCOTUS. I think it's more a way of bringing attention to the problems of lack of preemption, which the Legislature may actually do.

We had a major bill to address many, if not all the issues of the lawsuit. It would have included constitutional carry, complete state preemption, and more. The bill was shelved by the committee chair(that seems to be the only defense mechanism for the anti-gun politicians these days). The legislative session is over for the year, so the lawsuit has a shot of getting to the 4th circuit before the legislature could act. My guess-they'll do the same thing next year to protect the weasels who want to say they're pro-gun but don't want to upset the puppet masters in the Democratic party.

Inigoes · Jun 24, 2011

press1280 said:
We had a major bill to address many, if not all the issues of the lawsuit. It would have included constitutional carry, complete state preemption, and more. The bill was shelved by the committee chair(that seems to be the only defense mechanism for the anti-gun politicians these days). The legislative session is over for the year, so the lawsuit has a shot of getting to the 4th circuit before the legislature could act. My guess-they'll do the same thing next year to protect the weasels who want to say they're pro-gun but don't want to upset the puppet masters in the Democratic party.

Careful, there is supposed to be a special session this fall, under the guise of redistricting.

GTOGUNNER · Sep 29, 2012

Some movement here.
http://ia600400.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.wvsd.67217/gov.uscourts.wvsd.67217.41.0.pdf

Federal Judges ruled, West Virginians who want to carry guns on city property and challenge other municipal firearms ordinances as unconstitutional must first bring their cases to state court.
U.S. District Judge John T. Copenhaver Jr. has redirected the lawsuit against Charleston, South Charleston and Dunbar,the lawsuits allegations invoke the West Virginia Constitution and state law.
I believe a stay was issued for this case pending a decision from state court.
(I didn't read the whole thing)

krucam · Sep 29, 2012

The Judge appears to have punted, and needs to grow a pair. Using the Pullman Abstention (to kick back to State Court for a City of Charleston reg) showed a clear aversion to make a Constitutional call in this one.

Maybe (without knowing) something is still afoot regarding State preemption? :confused:

WV Group Sues Cities For Banning Guns on City Property

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

MSI Executive Member

Banned

Besieger

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

The M1 Does My Talking

NRA Endowment Member, Rifleman

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Senior Meatbag

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Head'n for the hills

IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics