From [HERE] The District of Columbia failed to shake off a proposed civil rights class action alleging its Metropolitan Police Department policy of stopping and searching for guns is racially biased (article available here(link is external)).

The allegations that the department’s gun recovery unit unlawfully targets Black males without reasonable suspicion or probable cause are sufficient to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, the court ruled Wednesday.

The nine members of the unit named in the complaint aren’t entitled to qualified immunity because the allegations, if true, are clearly illegal, the court held.

“It defies credulity that a law enforcement officer would not know that stopping and searching a citizen with no reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause was plainly unlawful." The allegations are also sufficient to proceed with claims that the city has a “policy or custom that was the ‘moving force’(link is external) behind the alleged constitutional injury,” the court added.

The court cited the testimony of one D.C. police officer that the Narcotics and Special Investigations Division, which oversees the gun recovery unit, used “illegal tactics,” and allegations that the GRU “openly displayed flags, banners, and t-shirts, depicting or alluding to their reputation for stopping and searching residents of the areas in which they operated,” which shows that policymakers were aware of their practices.

The case is Crudup v. District of Columbia(link is external), No. 20-cv-1135 (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2023).

The Supreme Court made it clear that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in public. The court clearly stated;

Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms. As we explained in Heller, the “textual elements” of the Second Amendment’s operative clause— “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be in- fringed”—“guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. Heller further confirmed that the right to “bear arms” refers to the right to “wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.”

This definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry. Most gun owners do not wear a holstered pistol at their hip in their bedroom or while sitting at the dinner table. Although individuals often “keep” firearms in their home, at the ready for self-defense, most do not “bear” (i.e., carry) them in the home beyond moments of actual confrontation. To confine the right to “bear” arms to the home would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections.

Moreover, confining the right to “bear” arms to the home would make little sense given that self-defense is “the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 599; see also McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767. After all, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home.

Although we remarked in Heller that the need for armed self-defense is perhaps “most acute” in the home, id., at 628, we did not suggest that the need was insignificant else- where. Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the home than in it. See Moore v. Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933, 937 (CA7 2012) (“[A] Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower”). The text of the Second Amendment reflects that reality.

The Second Amendment’s plain text thus presumptively guarantees petitioners Koch and Nash a right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense.

White Liberals overwhelmingly subject Black people to greater restrictions in the free range prison. Black citizenship is so low that; no matter what the law says, Blacks are prohibited from possessing guns. A recent Marshal Project study found that liberal authorities fail to to make arrests in the overwhelming majority of most Shootings but are cramming Blacks into their jails over mere gun possession.

By coercively interfering in individuals’ self-defense efforts, the state becomes partly responsible (in addition to the criminals themselves) for their victimization – the state in effect becomes an accomplice to those crimes. Failing to protect people is one thing; actively intervening to stop them from protecting themselves is much worse. [MORE]

Brazen cops so frequently abuse their power that no Black shopper, pedestrian, motorist, juvenile, adult or Black professional of any kind—could make a rational argument that so-called constitutional rights provide any real protection from cops or the government in general. The only thing upholding the 4th Amendment is your belief in it. You only have rights if an authority says that you do or agrees that you do. Your possession of "rights” given to you by a magical government, which functions as your master, is cult belief. In reality, as explained by Dr. Blynd, “There is no freedom in the presence of so-called authority.” [MORE]

Blacks are subject to omnipresent interference by cops with their freedom of movement and their right to be left the fuck alone, Black people are 3 times more likely than whites to be murdered by cops and the police have no legal duty to protect any particular citizen from harm unless they are in custody (“the public duty doctrine”). Said factors exist in a legal context in which law enforcement is uncontrollable by citizens, generally unaccountable to them, can’t be hired or fired by citizens and has irresponsible, limitless power over people to take life on the street as they see fit while providing a compulsory “service” that citizens have no “right” to decline. [MORE]