In case you haven’t noticed, the Firearms Policy Coalition is currently litigating more Second Amendment-related lawsuits than just about all of the other gun-rights groups combined. That’s because the organization’s overall strategy is focused on restoring the right to keep and bear arms by having immoral laws struck down in the courts.
The FPC’s latest target is our nation’s capital—specifically Washington, D.C.’s ban on firearms magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The case, Wehr-Darroca v. D.C., filed on December 18 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, challenges the ban on common magazines as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of D.C. citizens.
“Washington D.C. is not exempt from the Constitution,” FPC President Brandon Combs said in a news release announcing the lawsuit. “Today, FPC continues its work to end these immoral firearm magazine bans and other unconstitutional policies throughout the country.”
In the complaint, FPC argues that the magazines being banned are covered under the U.S. Supreme Court’s “common use” precedent as set forth in the 2008 Heller ruling.
“The magazines at issue in this case are not ‘dangerous and unusual,’” the lawsuit states, “but instead are standard components of the sorts of bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes.”
As FPC explains in the complaint, the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms, and D.C.’s law doesn’t recognize that right.
“As protected by this constitutional provision, Plaintiffs, and other law-abiding, peaceable residents of the District, have a fundamental, constitutionally guaranteed right to keep common arms for defense of self and family and for other lawful pursuits,” the complaint states. “Despite this guarantee, Defendants have enacted and enforced a flat prohibition on the sale and/or possession of common, standard capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The District’s Ban, and Defendants’ enforcement thereof, denies individuals who reside in the District, including the individual Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc.’s (“FPC”) similarly situated members, of their fundamental, individual right to keep and bear common arms.”
The complaint also takes issue with the District of Columbia’s assertion that magazines designed to hold more than 10 rounds are somehow “uncommonly dangerous.”
“Standard capacity magazines do not give rise to ‘unprecedented lethality,’” the complaint further explains. “The modern variants have been widely available and commonly used for at least 100 years, if not longer. Nor are they “uncommonly dangerous.” More than 700 million of them have been produced and sold over the past 30 years, and at least 40 states have no restrictions at all on magazine capacity. Standard magazines are common in all respects.”
In the complaint, the FPC further points out how D.C.’s ban has no effect on violent criminals, only law-abiding gun owners, rendering it useless for curbing violent crime.
“Unlike law-abiding citizens, violent criminals are not meaningfully constrained by the District’s Ban,” the complaint states. “Given the hundreds of millions of standard capacity magazines in circulation in the country, it is not difficult for violent criminals to acquire them through illegal sales or importation despite the District’s Ban. And unlike law-abiding citizens, violent criminals will have no compunction about violating the Ban.”
In the end, plaintiffs are asking the court to issue a declaratory judgment that the ban violates Second Amendment rights and issue a permanent injunction barring D.C. officials from enforcing the ban.
Say bye bye to mag limits, the rest of the states will fall fast after this.
Going tit for tat with an agenda Rooted in Racism and Genocide will never end…Follow the money.
Now that POTUS DJT has been elected my work is mostly done here. My next project is raising a Malinois and going after sites that Block Free Speech.
I wonder how many of the “men” on this forum sent e-mails or made calls to their US Congressmen about the Spending Orgy?
My congressman is a democrat communist who always votes with the democrat communist leadership of his democrat communist party. It doesn’t help to write to him because he always wins his re-election bids with a more-than-comfortable margin.
But I DID write to Senator Rick Scott. I told him that “I did NOT NOT NOT vote for this!”, and yes that’s a quote.
Marco Rubio’s website has already been changed in advance of his upcoming cabinet confirmation vote, and it’s no longer possible to send him an email.
I would send him a letter via USPS, but I highly doubt he’ll even vote on this, and if he does, he probably won’t ever get to read my letter.
But fret not, dear Debbie. I’ve written “Little Marco” many times in the past. He might even know my name.
Good luck with your new Malinois project!
No one likes a nag let alone a useless one.
“Now that POTUS DJT has been elected my work is mostly done here”.
As if most of us here were going to vote for Kackala. Stop being stupid silly woman.
Also woman…why the fuck would I email Hickenlooper or Bennet?
Debbie I love your posts on gun builds but how I interact with my useless politicians does zero good.
Hey Deb, go make some cookies or something “girlie “
Two groups want the population disarmed; the CCP and the Dems.
Two?
Whatever magazine furnished from the manufacturer as standard equipment is, well, STANDARD. Should it hold over any arbitrary number of rounds is, just that, ARBITRARY, not unusual or excessively dangerous.
I donate to [FPC]. I just learned to wait until after January 1st, because when you send a December 31st donation, they start sending you stuff every 2 weeks starting in January, asking for your “membership donation for ” or whatever.
There should always be an option to “opt out” of further contact for a running 12 months once you make a donation. But they won’t make me “boss for a day”, no.
“There should always be an option to “opt out” of further contact for a running 12 months once you make a donation.”
Its the way their system is set up to automatically email. If you contact them they will take you off the email list.
INSANE: BIDEN DOJ MAKES CRAZY ARGUMENTS TO DEFEND POST OFFICE GUN BAN.
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0k8DSCLStU
Some folks might be surprised to learn, if they possibly could, how many postal carriers (not to mention others like teachers in places like CA or Amazon drivers or gig workers) are actually carrying more than mailpieces…
A Perspective on Magazine Bans That You Probably Never Thought Of.
“Today we focus on magazine ban, and in particular the case of Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, and case now sitting on the front porch of the Supreme Court. Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, goes through a very well-written amicus brief from several organizations that we don’t often get to talk about, but this brief deserves a conversation. They bring a perspective to this fight that many of us don’t have, but it is every bit as effective as any other argument used in this debate. ”
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5tB4VQ5vg
When ChatGPT Thinks Your Gun Laws Are Unconstitutional.
“Since there is no really intelligence left in our local governments, we decided to see what artificial intelligence has to say about some of this country’s craziest and most onerous gun laws. Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, does over the very interesting results when we had ChatGPT explore the constitutionality of various gun laws. The good news is that we can probably replace many of our state legislators with an algorithm that understands your Constitutional Rights better than anyone else.”
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDjVAppCrwM
When ChatGPT Thinks Your Gun Laws Are Unconstitutional.
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDjVAppCrwM
I’ll accept mag limts if they find a way to limit attackers to one at a time.
No mag limits, ever; this is never a legal tradeoff.
FPC is definitely the best.
What I’d really, really, really like to see them do however is find a way to get the SCOTUS to revisit “sensitive spaces” and force a definition of that term that actually makes sense.
One of the biggest issues with the antis (and honestly, hard-lefties in general) is that unless you nail them to the wall (because tying their hands doesn’t work), they’ll always find a way to stretch definitions in a manner that expands their capacity to *ban* things well past the limits rationality.
Such definitions also require teeth for “stretching violations”. Such games should result in civil rights lawsuits that go after the personal assets of prosecutors, LE and legislators who craft and enforce such bullshit.
Comments are closed.