First, in the paragraph directly above the sentencing grid, is it possible the text should read "group 8" in the middle sentence of that paragraph?
Second, I wonder if this reflects a shift in the DC Courts' and the USAO's views about the underlying constitutionality of §§ 22–4503 through 4504 especially in light of NYSRPA v. Bruen? This invalidated a New York state law highly similar to the gun possession laws discussed above.
Although Bruen was decided in June 2022, there were procedural indications that suggested this was the likely outcome well before the decision in Bruen itself. If I remember correctly, the Court even heard a challenge to a different, but similar, New York law prior to Bruen. The New York legislature, seeing the writing on the wall, repealed the law thus getting the case dismissed prior to a ruling. Further challenges resulted in the Bruen grant in 2021 and ruling in 2022, so I think it's been understood the Court was ready to make such a ruling since well before the decision in 2022.
Thanks, that is a good catch on the Group, I just fixed that.
That might be a contributing factor though I have not heard that be offered as a reason by MPD or the USAO. MPD and the USAO are still arresting and prosecuting people under those laws so it doesn't seem like they think they are 100% unconstitutional. Maybe this is impacting their decision-making on the edge cases?
That would impact CPWL more so than UPF right? Some defense lawyers seemed to be much more bullish on CPWL being unconstitutional than UPF.
Yes, but their behavior here is at least very mildly suggestive they're concerned about the constitutional issue. For example, the light sentences and guilty pleas (which probably prohibit the defendants from appealing) are suggestive USAO doesn't want to push the issue. Certainly not proof, but perhaps something lingering in the background.
On UPF....I think you're probably right. But Bruen is (in my opinion) a WILDLY unworkable standard. For example, at least one Circuit court has determined the Federal equivalent to § 22–4503(a)(5) is unconstitutional. Granted it's the Fifth Circuit and the government is appealing THAT decision, US v. Rahimi. The Rahimi decision is itself a kinda wild interpretation of Bruen (making it double wild?).
This is all speculation on my part, but underscores how getting guns off the street is a really difficult problem for all sorts of reasons. Even if MPD and USAO worked together to produce higher quality evidence and prioritize these cases, it's totally possible, and perhaps even probable, that would result in the cases falling down in Superior Court or the DC Court of Appeals.
Two quick comments/questions:
First, in the paragraph directly above the sentencing grid, is it possible the text should read "group 8" in the middle sentence of that paragraph?
Second, I wonder if this reflects a shift in the DC Courts' and the USAO's views about the underlying constitutionality of §§ 22–4503 through 4504 especially in light of NYSRPA v. Bruen? This invalidated a New York state law highly similar to the gun possession laws discussed above.
Although Bruen was decided in June 2022, there were procedural indications that suggested this was the likely outcome well before the decision in Bruen itself. If I remember correctly, the Court even heard a challenge to a different, but similar, New York law prior to Bruen. The New York legislature, seeing the writing on the wall, repealed the law thus getting the case dismissed prior to a ruling. Further challenges resulted in the Bruen grant in 2021 and ruling in 2022, so I think it's been understood the Court was ready to make such a ruling since well before the decision in 2022.
Thanks, that is a good catch on the Group, I just fixed that.
That might be a contributing factor though I have not heard that be offered as a reason by MPD or the USAO. MPD and the USAO are still arresting and prosecuting people under those laws so it doesn't seem like they think they are 100% unconstitutional. Maybe this is impacting their decision-making on the edge cases?
That would impact CPWL more so than UPF right? Some defense lawyers seemed to be much more bullish on CPWL being unconstitutional than UPF.
Yes, but their behavior here is at least very mildly suggestive they're concerned about the constitutional issue. For example, the light sentences and guilty pleas (which probably prohibit the defendants from appealing) are suggestive USAO doesn't want to push the issue. Certainly not proof, but perhaps something lingering in the background.
On UPF....I think you're probably right. But Bruen is (in my opinion) a WILDLY unworkable standard. For example, at least one Circuit court has determined the Federal equivalent to § 22–4503(a)(5) is unconstitutional. Granted it's the Fifth Circuit and the government is appealing THAT decision, US v. Rahimi. The Rahimi decision is itself a kinda wild interpretation of Bruen (making it double wild?).
This is all speculation on my part, but underscores how getting guns off the street is a really difficult problem for all sorts of reasons. Even if MPD and USAO worked together to produce higher quality evidence and prioritize these cases, it's totally possible, and perhaps even probable, that would result in the cases falling down in Superior Court or the DC Court of Appeals.
Yeah, it's an incredibly tough problem to solve. Thanks for the very detailed comments, this is helpful context.
Did you see the Kennedy St. arrests? A good portion of the government's filing to deny bail is about how several participants were picked up on gun offenses but ultimately were either not charged or prosecuted. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EvXVqE_iNMU7OVt2ca6irTdnaILjB7yC/view?usp=sharing