Lake Erie Conservative

thoughtful discussion(s) about issue(s)

Posts Tagged ‘District of Columbia’

… Earth to Nutcase [#activist lawfare lawyer]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,September 26th,2016

.. the university is named Catholic University of America . It is an institution of higher education , dedicated to presentation of in the way of the Catholic faith and based theoreon ….

.. other students are free to worship on the campus . They just need to understand and remember the mission of the Univeristy . …

.. [h/t — Breitbart.com(BigGovernment)]…
.. [link] to the blog news post …

.. the District of Columbia should remember that whatever they may pass in their city ‘ s so – called Human Rights code , the entirety of the people in the District [including the students , faculty , and administration of Catholic University] still have their constitutional rights . Those rights include the Bill of Rights , among which is paramount , the First Amendment ‘ s protection of the Freedom of Religion ….

.. so , guys , back off , or else …

Advertisements

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Haven’t You Folks Gotten the Message [#DC Statehood??]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,September 1st,2016

.. evidently not …

.. a bill passed by Congress , and signed by the President , controls the admission of a new state , but …

.. the Constitution sets the rules …

.. [h/t — Newsmax.com]..
.. [link] to the news article …

.. the Nation ‘ s capital is not eligible for admission . Maryland and Virginia ceded land (in the 1790s) for the creation of the District . It is the seat of the Nation ‘ s national government . Congress controls it , via DC home rule (??) …

.. the territory is not allowed to become a state . If it were disestablished , then the land reverts to Maryland and Virginia , not to the status of a territory …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Aww , Poor Babies [#d.c. CAbbies and the free market]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,July 26th,2016

.. the babies are complaining …

.. now , the customer is getting a break , thanks to technology …

.. the ride – saharing services that help the market a a huge help . When they help screen the prospects , they also help flood the market with new prospective drivers …

.. [h/t — hotAir.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post …

.. being in the nation ‘ s capital sure helps . You have the District of Columbia , which , in effect , Congress controls , and two different states [Maryland and Virginia] … the effect of the ride sharing services is beginning to have a drastic effect on the Taxi market in the D.C. region …

.. the captives are breaking free , and the market is beginning to win out , as a result …. Yeah !!!! ….

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Our Nation ‘ s Capital has a Nasty Problem with its Gun Laws [#court case]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,May 30th,2016

.. they keep getting picked apart and rejected ..

.. this time the case is Grace v. D.C. . The plaintiff [Matt Grace] helps represents gun groups in D.C. on behalf of the Pink Pistols , a LGBTQ rights group dedicated to self – defense . Also , they got lucky on the choice of judges . They drew District Judge Richard Leon , who was a George W. Bush appointee . Then , how did the case turn out ?? ..

.. [h/t — VolokhConspiracy.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. for the most part , very well . Judge Leon ruled that D.C. must become a ” shall – issue ” jurisdiction , due to the precedent laid out in the Heller decision ..

The District’s Concealed Carry Scheme Is Likely Unconstitutional . . .

Strict Scrutiny Is Likely the Appropriate Level of Constitutional Scrutiny . . .

Because the Second Amendment’s text places the right to “keep” and to “bear” arms on equal footing, it follows that the right to “bear” arms for self-defense also lies at the core of the Second Amendment’s protections. Indeed, the purpose of the Second Amendment, as articulated by the Supreme Court, supports this conclusion. . . . The need for self-defense is, of course, greater outside the home than it is within it. . . . Furthermore, I note that plaintiffs here are the very type of “law-abiding, responsible citizens” whose Second Amendment rights are entitled to full protection under Heller.

The District’s “Good Reason” Requirement Imposes a Substantial Burden on Core Second Amendment Conduct. . . .

[T]he burden imposed by the statute at issue is [not] as insignificant as that of a “time, place, and manner restrictions” on speech that leave open “ample alternative channels of communication.” . . . Indeed, the requirement’s intended effect is to prohibit the typical citizen from carrying a firearm outside his or her home for several legitimate and constitutionally protected purposes — including when in dangerous neighborhoods, where the need for protection is as undeniable as it is unfortunate, or for self-defense from unanticipated, suddenly arising threats — notwithstanding the fact that he or she can successfully clear a multitude of qualifying hurdles. . . .

The District’s Concealed Carry Scheme Likely Fails Strict Scrutiny. . . .

[T]his Court agrees with defendants that the District’ s interest in public safety is implicated by people carrying guns in public, and certainly more so than when they keep guns within the confines of their homes. But, unfortunately for defendants, it does not automatically follow that the District has a compelling interest in reducing to the greatest extent possible the number of law-abiding, responsible citizens eligible to carry guns in public. Rather, when the District’s pursuit of public safety substantially burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, as issuing licenses only in certain self-defense situations does, it must at the very least prove that the policy achieves significant public safety gains and that those gains would not be achieved by a more inclusive licensing policy.

Defendants have failed to meet these criteria, and I am skeptical that they can. They waste much ink on the irrelevant contention that plaintiffs cannot prove that “more guns equals less crime.” In strict scrutiny review, however, defendants bear the burden of justifying their policy. More important still, defendants do not even attempt to explain why the District’s licensing scheme could not be broader and allow for more responsible, law-abiding citizens to obtain concealed carry permits for their legitimate self-defense needs, while simultaneously protecting public safety.

All they offer by way of reasoning is that all guns, even guns carried in self-defense, increase the incentive for criminals to carry guns, or increase the chances for accidents. But as plaintiffs rightly emphasize, “it is ‘not a permissible strategy’ to reduce the alleged negative effects of a constitutionally protected right by simply reducing the number of people exercising the right.”

Rather, the District’s licensing restrictions would only be narrowly tailored to achieve public safety if they were targeted at keeping guns away from the people who are likely to misuse them or situations where they are likely to be misused. On the record before me, I must agree with plaintiffs that defendants are unlikely to be able to show the “good reason” requirement is narrowly tailored to this end. . . .

Although the District’s “good reason” requirement likely does keep guns out of the hands of some people likely to misuse them, it does so only by keeping guns out of the hands of most people. . . . Because the District’s law is likely wholly disproportionate to the public interest it could legitimately serve, there is a strong likelihood plaintiffs will ultimately succeed in showing the law is not narrowly tailored and is, therefore, unconstitutional. . . .

Conclusion

In Heller, the Supreme Court’s unequivocally asserted that “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” The District’s understandable, but overly zealous, desire to restrict the right to carry in public a firearm for self-defense to the smallest possible number of law-abiding, responsible citizens is exactly the type of policy choice the Justices had in mind.

Because the right to bear arms includes the right to carry firearms for self-defense both in and outside the home, I find that the District’s “good reason” requirement likely places an unconstitutional burden on this right. Accordingly, I hereby GRANT plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction and enter an order that enjoins the District of Columbia from denying concealed carry licenses to applicants who meet all eligibility requirements other than the “good reason” requirement. . . .

Of course, I doubt that this will be the courts’ last word on the subject; I expect the decision will be stayed pending appeal to the District of Columbia Circuit, and from there it may well reach the Supreme Court, especially if the District of Columbia Circuit agrees that the D.C. carry restriction is unconstitutional. What will happen at the Supreme Court of course likely depends on what will happen in the political process in the next six months.

.. the District has a real problem . They will obviously want to appeal this one to the D.C. Appeals Court , which will give them precious time [and a presidential election] to stop it . However , the SCOTUS may well step in and take the case away from the appeals court , as it has done in several cases , recently ..

.. so , there is hope in D.C. for gun rights !! …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… You Have to Be Kidding …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Saturday,April 5th,2014

.. someone who is found guilty of illegal possession of ammunition … for possessing an ” inactive ” muzzle – loading bullet ??

.. [h/t — LegalInsurrection]..
.. [link] to the blog post …

.. believe it or not , it did happen , and in our Nation ‘ s capital , where , it seems , gun laws do not make any sense …

.. so that you get the full picture , I am going to do something that I do not do very often , and bring over the entire blog post from LegalInsurrection . That way , you can get the tenor of the situation in context …

Yesterday, a D.C. Judge found Mark Witaschek guilty of “attempted possession of unlawful ammunition” for possessing an antique replica muzzleloader bullet.

Emily Miller at the Washington Times has thoroughly chronicled Mr. Witaschek’s court proceedings, which to date have spanned nearly two years and now appear likely to continue into the appellate stage.

In brief, the case centered on a single inert piece of ammunition, which rested on Mr. Witascheck’s desk in the District, and which he did not know was illegal.

William F. Vanderpool, a retired supervisory special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, [explained] to the judge that the saboted lead balls have no powder or propellant attached, so are not “live…”

The primer on the shotgun shell had already been struck by the firing pin. Mr. Witaschek kept the misfired shell on his home office desk as a memento from a hunt.

Ultimately, Mr. Witaschek was sentenced to time served, a $50 fine, and is required to enroll with the Metropolitan Police Department’s firearm offenders’ registry within 48 hours.

Although the conviction sounds relatively benign, the guilty sentence carries its own set of personal and professional ramifications, which Mr. Witaschek will now have to work through. Moreover, this case represents a shocking display of favoritism carried out by D.C. area law enforcement.

As noted on Legal Insurrection before, NBC anchor, David Gregory, previously managed to avoid prosecution even after the anchor violated D.C. laws by procuring an empty 30-round magazine and displaying it on live television.

Unlike Mr. Witaschek’s unknowing violation of the law, the violation by Gregory and NBC was no accident. Indeed, as we’ve shown here before, an e-mail from an NBC News representative explicitly inquired into the legality of the use and possession of the empty magazine. The D.C. Metropolitan Police Department told NBC that, “possession of high capacity magazines is a misdemeanor.”

Gregory OAG Email Dec 21 2012 NBC to MPD3

Roughly 36 hours following receipt of that unequivocal advisory e-mail from the MPD, Gregory brandished the magazine on NBC’s Sunday program, Meet The Press.

It was later determined by the Office of Attorney General, in no uncertain terms, that Gregory and NBC clearly violated D.C. laws by possessing the magazine. The MPD delivered a Warrant and supporting Affidavit to OAG, a document OAG has refused to provide to Legal Insurrection in response to our Freedom of Information Act request, and which we are now fighting in court (with the help of Judicial Watch) to obtain.

Notwithstanding this determination that Gregory and NBC News violated the law, the OAG opted not to prosecute Gregory or anyone at NBC because, among other things, “prosecution would not promote public safety in the District of Columbia nor serve the best interests of the people of the District to whom this office owes its trust.”

Purely coincidentally, Gregory’s wife attended a charity function with D.C Attorney General Irvin Nathan.

And so it goes in D.C.

Barely three weeks after the willful violation, the entire issue was thrown out. At least for Gregory and NBC, that is.

No such luck for the recreational hunting enthusiast, Mr. Witaschek, who endured nearly two years of vociferous prosecution from the Attorney General’s office for a substantially similar, though inadvertent, violation.

0
6

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »