We just won Palmer at the DC District Court!
- Thread starter Jim March
- Start date
DC itself is not a federal enclave. There are lots of federal enclaves within DC such as the White House grounds, the Capitol grounds and surrounding Congressional buildings, The US Supreme Court, the National Mall/Monument/Memorials/museums, and military bases like the Navy Yard, etc.
DC's local government operates like a cross between a city and a state government. Even though it has a home rule charter Congress still technically has the final oversight and say over any laws passed.
Of course, DC's Police Chief co-ordinates with the US Attorney's office. With so much Federal property in DC that is necessary, but the chief is appointed by the Mayor and answers to the Mayor.
Have a source for that? Every result I get for googling "Is DC a Federal Enclave" says it is, or isn't actually on point. Not one says it isn't so far.
Wouldn't that make the District of Columbia Federal? And why the OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA represents them. (Sorry for the all Caps, it was copy and paste to get it right) Additionally Wikipedia and this says the MPD was formed by an Act of Congress in 1861. Furthermore, it points out the MPD has been required, with other federal agencies, to prepare a report to Congress annually. One can also find quite a bit of information about DC Police and Firefighter retirement plans on the DoTreasury website if you hunt. All in all, I think it would be extremely easy for a lawyer to make the case that the US and/or it's officers are party to the lawsuit.
motorhead0922
New member
Seems to me that in this case the District is acting like a state, not federal property. Federal restrictions that I know of always refer to a building and sometimes surrounding grounds (or a lake).
Armorer-at-Law
New member
Exactly. Except DC does not have the sovereignty of a state and so was/is unquestionably subject to the 2A.
DC is often referred to by many as a federal enclave which isn't totally accurate. The DC Government is a municipal government, not federal. It answers to Congress but it's not part of the Federal Government. It gets funding from the Federal Government which is mostly intended to make up for the lost revenue caused by DC not being able to tax the massive amount of federal property within it's borders. DC has a limited form of home rule whereas it can pass it's own laws and collect taxes. Those laws are still subject to approval by Congress. It has an Attorney General like a state but it's not a state.
I know people will continue to call DC a federal enclave no matter what I write here. My point is that the DC Government is not a branch of, nor is it part of the Federal Government. It is in the same category as a state government.
I know people will continue to call DC a federal enclave no matter what I write here. My point is that the DC Government is not a branch of, nor is it part of the Federal Government. It is in the same category as a state government.
The District of Columbia is a Federal District and came into existence via operation of the Constitution itself:
Simply because the Congress writes various laws that treats DC as if it was a State, does not detract from the fact that this enclave is, and barring further amendments, a Federal District, and treated within the Federal Courts as any other Federal Agency.
Further, it should be remembered that it required an amendment to the Constitution in order for the residents of this Federal District to be able to vote in the Presidential Election. See Amendment 23.
Article I, Section 8, clause 17 - To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
Simply because the Congress writes various laws that treats DC as if it was a State, does not detract from the fact that this enclave is, and barring further amendments, a Federal District, and treated within the Federal Courts as any other Federal Agency.
Further, it should be remembered that it required an amendment to the Constitution in order for the residents of this Federal District to be able to vote in the Presidential Election. See Amendment 23.
It looks as if they're not going to appeal, but that they'd rather come up with a law modeled on Maryland's standard.
Mayor Gray has stated that the stay gives the city enough time to come up with a law.
Mayor Gray has stated that the stay gives the city enough time to come up with a law.
motorhead0922
New member
From Tom's link:
Maybe there will be a move in the House to tie the hands of DC council.
Maybe there will be a move in the House to tie the hands of DC council.
I was glad I could make it down during the window. I CC'd for the most part but had a few photo op's when the coast was clear.(Went viral on the internet) Between the flat top and gut I figured anyone who noticed would think I was a cop anyway. Can't seem to search and post pics for crying out loud.
Last edited:
DC's Answer to Gura opposition to stay pending Appeal
Since the Court Archive still does not have the DC Answer posted I will link it here: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/dcs-reply-to-gun-ruling/1197/
DC stated that it will file for reconsideration.
Overall, the DC answer appears weak. It rambles and presents a new and rather unique argument in the answer. They argue that we don't need citizens carry firearms in public, that is what armed police are for. - See footnote 5. This really is a case of DC grasping at straws.
Hopefully the judge does not give an answer to DC until the 90 days are almost up.
Since the Court Archive still does not have the DC Answer posted I will link it here: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/dcs-reply-to-gun-ruling/1197/
DC stated that it will file for reconsideration.
Overall, the DC answer appears weak. It rambles and presents a new and rather unique argument in the answer. They argue that we don't need citizens carry firearms in public, that is what armed police are for. - See footnote 5. This really is a case of DC grasping at straws.
Hopefully the judge does not give an answer to DC until the 90 days are almost up.
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
We don't need citizens having freedom of speech, either. Expressing political opinions is what we have politicians for.
Weak.
Weak.
diamondd817
New member
We already have 18 state and federal cases that ruled the police have no duty to protect an individual. Now DC is going to tell us the police will protect us. Sorry, can't have it both ways. I'm tired of hearing only the police should have guns rhetoric.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Excellent point.diamondd817 said:
Gary L. Griffiths
New member
And IIRC, one of those cases involves the DC Police!
Yeah, I spoke to one of the staff writing this up on the DC council judiciary.
Maryland seems to have a fair number of CCW, but in fact the great majority of those are retired LEO or and highly conditional some employment based allowing only for specific employment activity).
Dc is actually emboldened by Maryland's court victory and will write even more restrictive laws
In reality without police documented threats to your life you can forget getting a CCW in DC. And there will be no reciprocity whatsoever.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
That will NOT survive the Supreme Court (unless one of the justices retires and Obama gets to choose a successor).