Trump DOJ Continues to Support the Second Amendment in the Courts

Opinion

No Pardon for Partisan Hypocrisy
iStock

Earlier this year, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro, announced a critical change to policies affecting gun rights in Washington D.C.

Acknowledging the District’s restrictive firearm statutes infringed the Second Amendment rights of residents, Pirro announced – after consultation with the U.S. Department of Justice and the Solicitor General’s Office – federal prosecutors had been instructed not to seek felony charges for those carrying registered shotguns or rifles. Pirro made clear that D.C.’s blanket prohibition on this activity is in violation of U.S. Supreme Court rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and N.Y. State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Considering the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to lower crime in Washington, D.C., Pirro also made clear her office’s commitment to pursuing charges against those who had not obtained their firearms legally:

“We will continue to seize all illegal and unlicensed firearms, and to vigorously prosecute all crimes connected with them … And we will continue to charge a felon in possession of any of these firearms. Our resolve to prosecute crime is not lessened by defective DC code statutes, as the DOJ works to change those statutes.”

More recently, Pirro has determined another D.C. firearms statute cannot be reconciled with the Second Amendment: its blanket ban on possession of so-called large capacity feeding devices. This statute arbitrarily limits the capacity of a firearm magazine to 10 rounds or fewer, well below the factory-specified capacity for many common guns.

Last month, the United States filed a motion to vacate an appellant’s conviction under D.C. Code §7-2506.01(b) for possession of a large capacity feeding device. According to the filing, it is “the United States’s view that a complete ban on large capacity ammunition feeding devices as defined in D.C. Code § 7-2506.01(b) cannot survive constitutional scrutiny,” and, “As a result, the United States is not prosecuting violations of §7-2506.01(b) …” The filing further acknowledged the Department of Justice’s past defense of the statute but noted it “has changed its position as to the validity of the statute under the Second Amendment.”

The motion notably cited Magnus v. United States, 11 A.3d 237, 246-47 (D.C. 2011) as a basis for vacatur: “A conviction for conduct that is not criminal, but is instead constitutionally protected, is the ultimate miscarriage of justice.” The motion further made clear that the United States would not charge any defendants similarly situated to this appellee under D.C. Code § 7-2506.01(b) if arrested today, thus, vacating the conviction for possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device would serve to ensure “fundamental fairness.”

Also worth noting is that while the District of Columbia maintains that the magazine ban remains constitutional, it did not object to the motion to vacate the conviction in this case.

This is a significant development as other cases concerning “large capacity magazines” make their way through federal courts and is consistent with other similarly helpful moves by the Department of Justice. Last month, the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief supporting an NRA-backed challenge to New Jersey’s ban on “Assault Weapons” and “Large Capacity Magazines.”  As NRA continues these many fights to protect and advance the Second Amendment in courtrooms nationwide, it is increasingly finding an ally in the Trump administration’s Department of Justice.

That bodes well for building foundational strength for freedom in the years to come.


About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)


We are in dangerous times! We are SO CLOSE to our final funding goals! With your help we can make it!

Subscribe
Notify of
14 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nanashi

But Jeffery Bodell continues to walk free and Adamiak doesn’t. Bondi could, at any point, charge Bodell with Pejury and use Confession of Error to fre Adamiak. She doesn’t because she, and thus the Trump DoJ, is scum.

2gats

Trump admin supports 2A like the nra………take the $$$$, screw the supporters, draw out the fight, compromise and loose……maybe offer some insurance, wine or coins…….

Where is the abolishment of nfa? atf? Where is NATIONAL CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY????? blah, blah, blah……spare me

Trump working to end the filibuster which will be the end of 2A.

More pissing down are backs and calling it rain.

THERE. IS. NO. COMPROMISE! PERIOD!!!!!!!

RUSTY

“carrying registered shotguns or rifles” Mother may I….

Boz

When will David Gregory be arrested for having a 30-rd magazine in his possession in Washington, D.C. ??? The proof is on record and indisputable. lt was on LIVE tv. l guess ruIes and Iaws don’t apply when you’re a Iefty.

Nick2.0

Is NRA Foundation distancing itself from NRA?
https://2awhiterook.com/nra-foundation-statement/