In a surprising move, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington, D.C. will no longer be prosecuting individuals for carrying a rifle or shotgun, at least in most circumstances.
The Washington Post was first to report on the change, which allegedly comes from a DOJ memo authored by Justice Department officials including Solicitor General D. John Sauer. The new policy was confirmed by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, who offered a statement to the paper containing some details and the justification for the move.
Pirro, an ally of Trump who was confirmed as D.C.’s top federal prosecutor this month, said her office would continue charging crimes of violence or firearms trafficking that involved shotguns or rifles. There is no indication that D.C. prosecutors plan to stop charging people found to be illegally possessing handguns, which account for the bulk of firearms offenses in the District.
In a statement to The Post, Pirro said Tuesday night that D.C.’s blanket prohibition on carrying shotguns or rifles “is clearly a violation of the Supreme Court’s holdings” in two landmark cases expanding the right to bear arms: District of Columbia v. Heller from 2008 and N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen from 2022.
Any policy that recognizes the right to keep and bear arms is welcome, but it does beg the question: if DOJ believes the blanket prohibition on carrying rifles and shotguns is a violation of what SCOTUS has said, then what about carrying a handgun without a D.C. permit? As the Washington Post notes, the vast majority of arrests for possessing a firearm involve pistols, not long guns. From a practical standpoint, I’m not sure this changes much.
D.C.’s carry permits don’t cover the carriage of long guns, or open carry for that matter, so anyone carrying a rifle or shotgun is technically carrying without a permit, even if their guns are registered with the Metropolitan Police Department. If DOJ is giving that the green light, why not do the same with the firearms that are vastly more popular as carry guns?
It’s also unclear whether the new policy covers all rifles and shotguns, or only those not banned under D.C. law, though Pirro’s statement indicates her office will continue to prosecute at least some violations of another D.C. gun control law.
“Without question, President Donald Trump and I are committed to prosecuting gun crime,” Pirro said in the statement. “This unprecedented number of gun case prosecutions in both federal and local court is only done consistent with the constitution and the laws of the land.”
Regarding the new policy, Pirro added: “Nothing in this memo from the Department of Justice and the Office of Solicitor General precludes the United States Attorney’s Office from charging a felon with the possession of a firearm, which includes a rifle, shotgun, and attendant large capacity magazine pursuant to DC Code 22-4503. What it does preclude is a separate charge of possession of a registered rifle or shotgun.”
Why does DOJ plan to continue prosecuting at least some individuals for possessing a “large capacity” magazine if the department doesn’t want to run afoul of what SCOTUS has said in Heller and Bruen? The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that arms that are in common use for lawful purposes (including, but not limited to, self-defense) are protected by the Second Amendment, and magazines that can hold more than ten rounds are unquestionably in common use for a variety of lawful activities. Is this an indication that the DOJ, or at least the Solicitor General, believes that magazine bans comport with the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence?
I’m not complaining about the new policy, but its inconsistency does leave me scratching my head. Will Pirro’s office prosecute anyone found in possession of a “large capacity” magazine, or just convicted felons? Does this policy include the so-called assault weapons banned under District law? Why can rifles and shotguns be carried without a permit, but handguns aren’t included? Why can someone now openly carry a long gun under the DOJ policy, but not (presumably) a handgun? And does this policy only apply to D.C. residents who have registered their rifle or shotgun with the MPD, or does it also cover non-residents and visitors to the District?
It’s entirely possible that all of those questions are answered in the DOJ memo, which the Washington Post didn’t publish as part of its story. Either way, it’s incumbent on the Justice Department to address these issues ASAP. Gun owners need clear guidance on what will and won’t be viewed as prosecutable offenses, as well as why the agency seems to be taking several positions that are inconsistent with both the text of the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s past statements about our right to keep and bear arms.
Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
