DC Public Transportation Carry Ban Lawsuit

[Sunrise]

More BS out of DC.

"Get arrested so you can have standing." I'm not surprised that I'm not surprised.

 

[leakytire]

Since you haven't committed murder, we can't arrest you for murder? Thats pretty much how it works these days, and why we have mentally ill persons among us doing harm.

 

[Sunrise]

Since you haven't committed murder, we can't arrest you for murder? Thats pretty much how it works these days, and why we have mentally ill persons among us doing harm.

See the Bottom of Page 22 to the end of the Court’s Opinion: There’s no “credible threat of prosecution” by the MPD and MTPD so there’s no standing for Plaintiffs as a result. Amazing.

So it’s effectively become: deliberately violate the DC concealed carry law (by open carry, brandishing, visibility + printing, etc.) and get arrested to show that there’s a credible threat of prosecution for illegal carry in DC on public transit… which means that you will get arrested and not be able to carry (ever again anywhere) but you’ll now have standing to challenge DC’s prohibition of carry on transit law.

This judge is a jackass and I hope he has the book thrown at him on appeal.

 

[Sunrise]

Here’s more from Page 23 of the Court’s Opinion:

“Indeed, when asked at oral argument, Plaintiffs’ 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.”

This is a good thing. That’s because we as licensed carriers follow the law and don’t commit crime…. But you know the anti-gunners would love it if we did.

 

[Longhorse]

Is this something that can be appealed to a higher court or does someone really have to be arrested at this point?

 

[swinokur]

Appealed

 

[Boxcab]

Appealed

And the climb up out of the ignorant courts begins.


.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

 

[RFBfromDE]

It sounds to me as if the judge believes the council to be comprised of fools that pass unenforceable laws that are harmless as no one takes them seriously.

I agree.

 

[Sunrise]

It sounds to me as if the judge believes the council to be comprised of fools that pass unenforceable laws that are harmless as no one takes them seriously.

I agree.

I agree too.



The Judge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randolph_Moss

 

[Sunrise]

And the climb up out of the ignorant courts begins.


.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

We're now at the point where there's a higher threshold standard to establish standing for 2nd Amendment Rights than 1st Amendment Rights.

It's a malicious and deliberate catch-22.

Hopefully this Judge gets the rebuke from the higher courts that he so richly deserves.

 

[swinokur]

Obama appointee

 

[Sunrise]

Obama appointee

Obediently serving the Party.

This published opinion is so revealing of the contempt these people have for our 2nd Amendment rights under the Constitution.

The stretching and twisting of words from their plain meaning. The non-sensical phrasing and justifications made. The assertion that one has to be arrested first for an illegal act in order to have standing to assert an associated Constitutional Right in a lawsuit.

They're willing to do it all to serve the Party.

 

[Sunrise]

Anybody hear if this lawsuit is getting appealed?

 

[Sunrise]

https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/60-Opinion.pdf

From the case out of NJ:

Finally, as discussed above, see supra Section III.A, the Court finds that
Plaintiffs’ credible fear of prosecution for violating one of the challenged restrictions constitutes irreparable injury. [See Koons Decl. ¶ 12; Gaudio Decl. ⁋ 15; Muller Decl. ¶ 13.] Unlike the Angelo v. District of Columbia court, which found under D.C. Circuit precedent that gun permit holders could not establish standing to challenge newly enacted legislation prohibiting them from carrying their handguns on public transportation because they could not point to prior threats of enforcement or a special likelihood of enforcement, 2022 WL 17974434, at *6 (D.D.C. Dec. 28, 2022), this Court comes to a contrary conclusion and reasons that Plaintiffs need not actually be subject to “arrest, prosecution, or other enforcement action” to challenge a criminal statute. See Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 158 (2014). It is enough that Plaintiffs’ prior conduct has been rendered criminal by the challenged provisions of Chapter 131.

(Page 58)

Would you look at that....

I sure hope the DC Plaintiffs/Attorney plan on appealing. The NJ Judge just gave them a roadmap to do so.

 

[No.4buck]

Thanks much. Ive been trying to find updates on this as well, but have not been able to.

https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/60-Opinion.pdf

From the case out of NJ:

(Page 58)

Would you look at that....

I sure hope the DC Plaintiffs/Attorney plan on appealing. The NJ Judge just gave them a roadmap to do so.

 

[Sunrise]

Thanks much. Ive been trying to find updates on this as well, but have not been able to.

I haven't seen anything about an appeal on this case by the DC Plaintiffs/Attorney yet. Hopefully it happens soon so this gets rolling again. This DC Judge needs to get schooled on standing big-time.

 

[Ismee]

I haven't seen anything about an appeal on this case by the DC Plaintiffs/Attorney yet. Hopefully it happens soon so this gets rolling again. This DC Judge needs to get schooled on standing big-time.

As I understand, the ruling was to not grant preliminary and permanent injunctive relief (I believe they should appeal the ruling on standing)...

"MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated herein, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, Dkt.6 , is DENIED. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 12/28/2022. (lcrdm3)"

The "case" continues...


"MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiffs' consent motion for scheduling order, Dkt.33 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that (1) Plaintiffs shall file any amended complaint on or before February 1, 2023; and (2) Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs' existing or amended complaint on or before March 3, 2023. It is further ORDERED that, should Plaintiffs renew their motion for a preliminary injunction, Defendants shall respond to such motion within 60 days of filing, and Plaintiffs shall file a reply, if any, within 30 days of Defendants' response. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 1/11/2023. (lcrdm3)"

This suggests Plaintiffs "may" renew their motion in February.


Follow here...

ANGELO et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (1:22-cv-01878), District Of Columbia District Court

ANGELO et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (1:22-cv-01878), District Of Columbia District Court, Filed: 06/30/2022

www.pacermonitor.com

 

[Sunrise]

As I understand, the ruling was to not grant preliminary and permanent injunctive relief (I believe they should appeal the ruling on standing)...

"MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated herein, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, Dkt.6 , is DENIED. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 12/28/2022. (lcrdm3)"

The "case" continues...


"MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiffs' consent motion for scheduling order, Dkt.33 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that (1) Plaintiffs shall file any amended complaint on or before February 1, 2023; and (2) Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs' existing or amended complaint on or before March 3, 2023. It is further ORDERED that, should Plaintiffs renew their motion for a preliminary injunction, Defendants shall respond to such motion within 60 days of filing, and Plaintiffs shall file a reply, if any, within 30 days of Defendants' response. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 1/11/2023. (lcrdm3)"

This suggests Plaintiffs "may" renew their motion in February.


Follow here...

ANGELO et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (1:22-cv-01878), District Of Columbia District Court

ANGELO et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (1:22-cv-01878), District Of Columbia District Court, Filed: 06/30/2022

www.pacermonitor.com

Great info! Thank you very much for finding/sharing this.

 

[Ismee]

It's a shame that Randolph likely doesn't ride Metrorail after yesterday's shooting at the Southern Ave station lot, It seems some in the MSM are referring to Metro stations as shooting galleries.

 

[swinokur]

For Heron. Mayor Barry spelling