National DOJ filed brief against DC Metro in new 2A case

[CamoDeafie]

View: https://youtu.be/27uv5ni_Cp8?si=xVS8uOCHHmZKN9Bv



In this case, United States of America versus Acting Chief of Police Carroll, for District of Columbia's Metropolitan Police Department; in the US District Court for DC; the DOJ states that it can use 34 USC 12601 to go after local government departments, agents, and officials who demonstrates a pattern of misconduct, violating citizens' 2A civil rights by enforcing DC's AR-15 ban.

The DC Metro filed a motion to dismiss, saying that they can enforce DC laws and that DOJ couldn't do anything about it, but the DOJ replied in this brief that 34 USC 12601 means that they can go after agencies for violating civil rights because the relevant code states in no uncertain terms; that "It shall be unlawful for any governmental authority, or any agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States."

(Source)-https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/12601


We will see how this acts out. Hopefully it will also lead to the overturning of many hardware laws, including those of the 9th District States (Hawaii, CA, Oregon, WA)

Read More

 

[Loc]

Hmmm...so felons can't be deprived of their 2A rights either by this logic. Or voting. Or free speech. And if they are, the DOJ should "go after" said governmental agencies, including itself, if they try to enforce said unconstitutional laws. Things that make me go, hmmm...

 

[CamoDeafie]

Hmmm...so felons can't be deprived of their 2A rights either by this logic. Or voting. Or free speech. And if they are, the DOJ should "go after" said governmental agencies, including itself, if they try to enforce said unconstitutional laws. Things that make me go, hmmm...

There is also 18 USC 4112, along with 18 USC 922(g). I do believe there was the Rahimi case that dealt with 18 USC Section 922 (g)(1) in SCOTUS. So.... It looks like 34 USC 12601 deals mainly with agencies/departments enforcing unconstitutional ordinances/laws/regulations.

 

[Loc]

There is also 18 USC 4112, along with 18 USC 922(g). I do believe there was the Rahimi case that dealt with 18 USC Section 922 (g)(1) in SCOTUS. So.... It looks like 34 USC 12601 deals mainly with agencies/departments enforcing unconstitutional ordinances/laws/regulations

Ah yes, but don't we hold that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land? Yep, I'm intentionally stirring the pot now.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Ah yes, but don't we hold that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land? Yep, I'm intentionally stirring the pot now.

Break the laws, what happens? You seem to forget, we do have those other Amendments that says States can punish people, as long as it's "reasonable" and not "cruel and unusual" there's a huge body of law and Court cases that basically backs up the notion that convicted people may not enjoy all of their rights.

Edit. It is true that it wasn't until the Gun Control Act of 1968 that the "prohibited person class" was formally encoded into law; but there have been other State level examples going back to founding era I think, of States denying convicts the right to arms, among others (coughs native Americans/Indians and ex-slaves)