DC settles $5.1M in lawsuit over gun rights violations.

The District of Columbia Settles $5.1 Million Lawsuit with Gun ⁢Owners

The District of Columbia has reached a groundbreaking settlement in a class action lawsuit brought by⁣ gun owners who claimed that their‌ Second Amendment rights were violated by the district’s laws prohibiting the carrying ⁤of firearms in public.

A group of five nonresidents filed the federal class⁢ action lawsuit against the District of Columbia’s local government in 2015, alleging that D.C. police officers had infringed⁢ upon their gun rights. After more than eight years of legal battles, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth has granted preliminary approval for a settlement agreement⁢ that will⁣ provide⁣ compensation to the plaintiffs.

The settlement includes a payment of approximately ⁣$50,000 to six named class representative plaintiffs, ​$2.2 million to cover the plaintiffs’ attorney expenses, and $2.6 million to notify and compensate other gun owners affected ​by D.C.’s gun laws.

Challenging⁤ D.C.’s Gun ⁣Laws

The original 2015⁣ class⁣ action complaint argued ⁢that the D.C. gun laws at‍ the ⁢time prohibited residents from carrying firearms outside their homes and completely barred ‌nonresidents from registering their firearms within ⁣the district.

Maggie Smith, the lead plaintiff⁤ in ‌the lawsuit, was a nurse who legally carried her firearm in North Carolina. During a visit to D.C. in‌ 2014, she was pulled over by a police officer. Following the guidelines she had learned in a gun ownership ⁢course,‌ Smith informed ⁣the officer about her licensed pistol. However, she was arrested ​and faced prosecution for gun-related offenses for nearly a year.

Other ‌plaintiffs faced similar arrests and charges, regardless ⁣of their residency status.‌ Although some had their‍ charges dropped, they still‍ suffered negative consequences as ⁢a result of the arrests.

One⁤ plaintiff, who held a “Top Secret‌ Security Clearance,” had his clearance reviewed even⁣ after the charges were dismissed. Another plaintiff lost their job due to the arrest, while yet another had their car seized ​and had to drop⁤ out of college because they⁣ couldn’t commute to⁢ class.

The D.C.⁤ government ‍argued that the plaintiffs should ⁤have been aware of the district’s gun laws and therefore had a legal obligation to comply. ‍However, Judge Lamberth, appointed ⁤by ‍President Ronald Reagan, rejected⁢ this argument in a 2021 opinion, stating that the plaintiffs had no ⁣viable options for legally carrying a gun for self-defense in​ D.C.

The settlement marks a significant victory for gun owners and highlights the importance of protecting Second Amendment⁢ rights. It serves as a reminder that individuals should be able to exercise their⁤ constitutional rights without fear of unjust prosecution.