Crystal Wright Conservative Black Chick

Earlier this month, another case was filed to regain Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia. This case is likely to succeed, and it may set some interesting precedents. It’s a case that sues to eliminate the unconstitutional ban on stun guns and Tasers in the District. From cnsnews.com:

The plaintiffs in this case—Crystal Wright, Brendan Turner, and Traci Dean—have indicated that they have a legitimate need to defend themselves, but each has stated a desire to use a Taser or stun gun against an assailant rather than a gun, knife, or some other form of lethal force. The plaintiffs argue that pursuant to Heller, the Second Amendment extends to “all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

Accordingly, the District “may not completely ban the keeping and bearing of arms for self-defense that are not unusually dangerous, deny individuals the right to carry arms in non-sensitive places,” or “deprive individuals of the right to keep or carry arms in an arbitrary and capricious manner.”

From the case filing  1:2016cv01556 against the District of Columbia and Cathy Lanier(pdf) :

37.
D.C. Code § 7-2502.01(a) provides with exceptions not pertinent to plaintiffs that “no person or organization in the District of Columbia (“District”) shall receive, possess, control, transfer, offer for sale, sell, give, or deliver any destructive device.”

38.
D.C. Code § 7-2501.01(7) (D) defines “Destructive device” inter alia as, “Any device designed or redesigned, made or remade, or readily converted or restored, and intended to stun or disable a person by means of electric shock.”

39.
Thus, the District of Columbia outlaws the private possession by
plaintiffs of a Taser or stun gun within the District.

The lawsuit cites the recent per curiam decision in Caetano v. Massachusetts:

13.

Given the decision in Heller, The District of Columbia may not completely ban the keeping and bearing of arms for self-defense that are not unusually dangerous, deny individuals the right to carry arms in non-sensitive places, deprive individuals of the right to keep or carry arms in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or impose regulations on the right to keep and carry arms that are inconsistent with the Second Amendment. See Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016); Heller v. District of Columbia, 801 F.3d 26

In Caetano(pdf), the Supreme Court unanimously held that stun guns were protected under the Second Amendment. It’s hard to see how the District court will be able to ignore that recent, unanimous, ruling. The District is already under legal threat that their abusively restrictive gun carry permit scheme is a de-facto ban.

It will be interesting to see how the D.C. lawyers attempt to wiggle out of this lawsuit.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

29 COMMENTS

  1. Did I miss the connection between the article and the main photo, or can lead photos now have nothing to do with an article?

    EDIT: Never mind; after some research, I now see she is one of the plaintiffs in this case (Wright). A caption/note would have been nice.

  3. Any politician that tries to ban firearms and anyone that tries to enforce a ban deserves to be shot.

    It is past time to defend yourself from the tyrants.

      • “Actually taking the shot is suicidal.”

        That is a situation where Sun Tzu’s Art of War provides excellent guidance. Specifically:
        (1) Know your enemy.
        (2) Fight on your terms, not on your enemy’s terms.

        Confronting an enemy politician or enemy enforcer in front of surveillance cameras and additional enemy enforcers would be confronting them on their terms. Don’t do that and you won’t be committing suicide.

        • “Know your enemy” (yes, I’ve read Art of War, I prefer it in its original poetic form rather than the more boring translations)

          i.e. “ButtHurtz” as a screen name, in the context of the comment made by same, indicates a troll trying to entice a certain reaction they may find useful

  4. Can you even have pepper spray in the DC hellhole? Or does congress and the president worry about that too:)

  6. all dumbocraps ought to NOT be allowed to have stun guns and “talk to them” as dumbocrap leaders suggest

  7. If the rest of the country carried stun gubs instead if handguns, much of the gun control debate would be settled very pro-carry

Comments are closed.