Ban on Guns on Capitol Grounds Upheld

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by Malum Prohibitum, Jul 20, 2019.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/white...covering-u-s-capitol-grounds-upheld-on-appeal

    Judge Thomas B. Griffith, writing for the court, said the ban was “presumptively lawful” under the “sensitive places” exception to the general Second Amendment rule protecting the right to carry guns in public. Although the street where Class parked is about 1,000 feet from the Capitol, it’s government-owned property set aside for Congress and its staff, making it “a potential stalking ground,” Griffith said.

    “The operation of the national legislature depends” on members of Congress being able to “freely and safely travel to and from work,” he wrote.​
     
    apx_31088 likes this.
  2. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    https://reason.com/2019/07/19/second-amendment-doesnt-protect-gun-possession-in-capitol-parking-lot/

    The Supreme Court has been careful to note that "longstanding prohibitions" like "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings" remain "presumptively lawful." Heller I, 554 U.S. at 626, 627 n.26…. [T]he same security interests which permit regulation of firearms "in" government buildings permit regulation of firearms on the property surrounding those buildings as well…
     

  3. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Finally, as the owner of the Maryland Avenue lot, the government—like private property owners—has the power to regulate conduct on its property. See [Adderley] v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 47 (1966) (observing in the free-speech context that the government, "no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated"); cf. Bonidy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 790 F.3d 1121, 1126 (10th Cir. 2015) (observing that when the U.S. Postal Service acts "as a proprietor rather than as a sovereign, [it] has broad discretion to govern its business operations according to the rules it deems appropriate").
     
  4. mrhutch

    mrhutch Well-Known Member

    1,423
    188
    63
    That's funny, they must have a version of the second amendment the rest of us have never seen. Because there's an awful lot language they're reading into "shall not be infringed".
     
    TimBob and RedDawnTheMusical like this.
  5. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,538
    683
    113
    Their idea of "sensitive places" creates a loophole you could drive a double trailer 18-wheeler through.

    And what kind of idiocy is it to say that because private actors can do something the constitution does not forbid, then the government can do it too? Would they try to say something so stupid in regard to the First Amendment ---freedom of speech and freedom of religion?


    Would they argue that the government is no more constrained as to how it can regulate conduct on government-owned land than a private actor could on his own private land???
     
    RedDawnTheMusical likes this.
  6. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,538
    683
    113
    This court ruling reminds me of the old Georgia "public gathering" weapons-free zones, with the courts extending it up to 100 or 200 yards from the actual sensitive place.
     
  7. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,631
    1,710
    113
    So who's Rodney Class and what did he originally get arrested for?

    https://dccrimeandpunishment.wordpress.com/tag/united-states-capitol-police/
     
  8. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,822
    828
    113
    Dayum, he was in DC still going that light on defenses? Dayum.

    Nemo
     
    Savannah Dan likes this.