The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, suing Washington’s local government over its gun laws. The suit claims that restrictions on certain semiautomatic weapons violate the Second Amendment.
DOJ’s Lawsuit Targets the Metropolitan Police Department
The Department of Justice named Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department and outgoing Chief of Police Pamela Smith as defendants. The filing sets the stage for a broader debate over how courts interpret individual gun possession rights.
Protecting 234 Years of Rights, According to the DOJ
In its complaint, the DOJ states that it brings the lawsuit “to protect the rights that have been guaranteed for 234 years and which the Supreme Court has explicitly reaffirmed several times over the last two decades.”
A Second Legal Challenge in a Short Span
This action follows a second lawsuit the administration filed this month, targeting the U.S. Virgin Islands for allegedly denying citizens the right to possess and carry guns.
Ongoing Tension Between Washington, D.C., and the Federal Government
The lawsuit is part of a series of confrontations. The District of Columbia’s attorney general has already challenged the deployment of the National Guard to the city as part of a summer law-enforcement intervention.
Police Department’s Stance on the Litigation
Washington Metropolitan Police Department spokesman Sean Hickman said the agency does not comment on pending litigation.
DOJ’s Argument: Unconstitutional Bans on Common-Use Weapons
The DOJ contends that the District is imposing unconstitutional bans on AR-15s and other semiautomatic weapons that the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller precedent deems legal to possess. The court’s ruling in that case affirmed that private citizens have an individual right to own and operate weapons “in common use today.”
The Heller Precedent and Its Caveat
In the Heller decision, the majority reasoned that “there seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” The justices added a caveat that “the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not.”
DOJ’s Specific Claims About Registration and Penalties
According to DOJ lawyers, the District’s restrictions prevent residents from registering a wide variety of commonly used semi-automatic firearms, such as the Colt AR-15 series rifles, which are among the most popular in America. Those restrictions, the DOJ argues, subject residents to criminal penalties for unregistered firearms.
What the DOJ Says About D.C.’s Semi-Automatic Firearms Prohibition
The suit describes the District’s current prohibition as banning many commonly used pistols, rifles or shotguns “based on little more than cosmetics, appearance, or the ability to attach accessories.” It argues that this approach fails to consider whether the prohibited weapon is “in common use today” or whether law-abiding citizens may use them for lawful purposes protected by the Second Amendment.
No Individual Plaintiffs in the Complaint
Unlike the Heller case, named for Dick Heller who filed a civil lawsuit in 2003, the DOJ’s complaint does not name any individual plaintiffs from Washington, D.C. alleging violations of their constitutional rights.
DOJ’s Claim of Jurisdiction
The administration argues that it has jurisdiction to challenge the District’s laws under the sweeping federal crime law of 1994.
Key Takeaways
- The DOJ has sued Washington, D.C. over its semiautomatic weapon restrictions, citing the Second Amendment and the Heller precedent.
- The lawsuit follows a second federal action this month against the U.S. Virgin Islands over gun-rights denial.
- The DOJ argues that D.C.’s bans are unconstitutional because they target weapons “in common use today” and penalize residents for unregistered firearms.
The filing marks a renewed clash between the federal government and the District of Columbia over gun-control measures, underscoring the ongoing legal battle over the scope of Second Amendment protections.
