In layman’s terms: U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro seeks a new court hearing, by the full panel of judges in the circuit, of a case that previously overturned some of D.C.’s gun control laws, and argues in favor of those laws.
After having its magazine ban struck down, the office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, led by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro (representing the Department of Justice), is asking the D.C. Court of Appeals to rehear the case en banc, presumably hoping for an outcome that would reverse and ultimately uphold the district’s gun control laws.
The 15-page en banc petition was filed on April 6 before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in the case of Benson v. United States, and has drawn sharp criticism from even the most even-handed voices in the Second Amendment community.
Kostas Moros, Director of Legal Research and Education for the Second Amendment Foundation, called the move a “…deeply frustrating development… A betrayal, [in my opinion].”
Hannah Hill, Vice President of the National Foundation for Gun Rights, called the move “SUPER disappointing,” adding, “…this probably does greatly increase the chances of en banc review instead of immediate Supreme Court appeal.”
Pirro, who recently made extremely aggressive public statements against gun owners and their constitutional rights, argues in the petition that the court erred in striking down the convictions against Mr. Benson in that it “…should have rejected the facial challenge” and issued the decision only as-applied in the case of Mr. Benson.
Pirro also claims that this precedential decision “will imperil approximately 300 pending CPWL prosecutions for conduct predating Benson.” That is to say, 300 other people charged with similar violations of carrying without a permit may find relief under this decision – an outcome that would be welcomed by the Second Amendment community.
Pirro’s office is also eager to uphold the D.C. registration scheme and attempts to twist the magazine capacity issue in the favor of the District, writing, “possession of a large-capacity ammunition feeding device is not a ground for denying firearm registration.” That is to say, because previously-banned magazines holding 11+ rounds are not on the list of items required to be registered, “there is no sign that a person who possesses a particular magazine would be ineligible for firearm registration.”
If the reader needed any convincing as to Pirro’s stance on the debilitating nature of gun control laws as infringements, she provides the clarity herself, stating, “Thus, we are not concerned with whether that statute [the statute banning large-capacity feeding devices] remains on the books.”
In response, on the very same day, the counsel for Mr. Benson filed a motion “to strike United States’ response to the District of Columbia’s petition for rehearing en banc.” Its request noted the untimeliness of the district’s filing as well as the fact that the district makes new arguments not previously made.
Had no idea Pirro was such a anti- Constitution tyrant.
Trump not paying attention to who he appoints, many bad personnel choices. It’s a betrayal of his promises to the 2A community. I would summarily fire Pirro without discussion.