That is incorrect. The arrest itself caused harm for which he may recover in damages.
But wouldn't that be for reasons other than the 2A?
That is incorrect. The arrest itself caused harm for which he may recover in damages.
But wouldn't that be for reasons other than the 2A?
REcovery could be under 1983 for a 2A constitutional violation or for simple false arrest, which is a 4th Amendment claim.
They requested En banq.
REcovery could be under 1983 for a 2A constitutional violation or for simple false arrest, which is a 4th Amendment claim.
REcovery could be under 1983 for a 2A constitutional violation or for simple false arrest, which is a 4th Amendment claim.
I agree that should be the case, but given the courts' propensity to stretch the "qualified immunity" doctrine to absurd lengths, I don't see cops ever being held liable for any firearms related arrests.
Wasn't the response due today?
SO now we wait and see what will happen. I wonder how long the waiting will be? Any of our legal members have any idea?
SO now we wait and see what will happen. I wonder how long the waiting will be? Any of our legal members have any idea?
Very good read and very well written.
I'm not sure but the court could ask for a reply from DC. I would think that would stretch things another few weeks.
Very good read and very well written.