Is it an 18 USC § 242 civil rights violation to deny a carry perimt?

[bushmaster1313]

Assuming a may issue jurisdiction and an applicant with no infirmities, if a law enforcement officer refuses as a matter of discretion to issue a carry permit is that a criminal violation of 2A civil rights?

18 U.S.C. § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

If a violation is reported does the Department of Justice/FBI have to investigate?:
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/color.htm

Is it conspiracy under 18 USC § 241 if more than one person in law enforcement work together to deny permits on a regular basis?

 

[Lucky Derby]

It certainly looks like it could be, but I will defer to the legal community.

 

[Frank Ettin]

But 18 USC 242 proscribes, "...under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race,..."

Is there evidence that permits are being granted to persons of one race or color and not to persons of another race or color?

 

[bensdad]

Not exactly what you're asking, but another good approach:
http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=331

 

[bushmaster1313]

The on account of race is a separate violation

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The on account of race is a separate violation ...

No it's not. Read it all again. In essence 18 USC 242 makes it a crime to, under color of law, subject any person to a deprivation of rights, or subject a person to different punishments, on account of that person's race. That what it comes down to when you remove a bunch of surplus words.

 

[waterhouse]

Have the courts decided that 2A allows you to carry a firearm on your person? Please let me know when this happened, since I'm scheduled to take the renewal class for my permit this weekend and I'd love to spend the $60 on something else.

ETA: I also agree with fiddletown's reading.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Check the elements of a 242 violation

Google: elements 282 violation color of law


Either deprive rights under color of law or punish or hurt because of race

 

[brboyer]

A carry permit? Not yet, but a purchase permit, Yes. but I believe that 42 USC 1983 is the proper statute:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

 

[bushmaster1313]

United States v
Lanier 520 U.S. 259, 264 (1997)

 

[waterhouse]

Either deprive rights under color of law or punish or hurt because of race

I may be wrong about agreeing with fiddletown, I'll have to read up on it.

My original question still remains.

 

[bushmaster1313]

My original question still remains

In states like New Jersey the only way to bear arms is via a permit.
2A protects right to keep and bear.
Denying permit (unless there is a good reason like insanity) is denial of right to keep and bear.

 

[waterhouse]

I can read the actual words of the 2nd.

Until very recently, it was within the law for places like DC and Chicago to entirely ban handguns, despite the language of the 2nd. It took a couple of supreme court rulings to get that mess taken care of, and even now it hasn't all been sorted out.

What I am asking, with all seriousness, is if the courts have ever said that a person has the right to carry a firearm on their person. I read Heller. I don't recall seeing something like that. I have an infant and a new puppy, and I haven't read McDonald yet, but I'd be surprised if they weighed in on the right to carry a firearm in that case.

While we can both read and agree on how we think the 2nd should be interpreted, what I'm asking is if the courts have said such? If the courts say "you have a right to own a gun in your home" and the cop says "I won't approve your permit to own a gun" then that is one thing. If the courts say "You have a right to own a gun in your home" and the cop says "I won't approve your permit to carry a gun on the streets" that is another thing.

I'm not agreeing with the way things are, I'm just asking what legal grounds you are basing this on. Have the courts written anything about carrying a gun, or is this just one of those "the Constitution is my carry permit" arguments?

 

[JellyJar]

Perhaps not today but hopefully in the near future.

 

[grndslm]

The short answer is, REQUIRING A CARRY PERMIT OF ALL SOVEREIGN BEINGS IS A VIOLATION OF YOUR RIGHTS... HOWEVER, the act of denying a permit is probably not a violation.

If you ask for permission for a right, which *all* government officials took an oath to protect, then you don't quite understand what a right is.

But 18 USC 242 proscribes, "...under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race,..."

Is there evidence that permits are being granted to persons of one race or color and not to persons of another race or color

You're not reading the concept in its entirety.

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Makes more sense like that, don't it? -OR- is a very legalistic word, alright. Gotta watch out for it and -AND-.

 

[grndslm]

Have the courts decided that 2A allows you to carry a firearm on your person? Please let me know when this happened, since I'm scheduled to take the renewal class for my permit this weekend and I'd love to spend the $60 on something else.

Forget about your person.

What have the courts ruled on your right to form a militia??

 

[P.O.2010]

The correct statute is 18 USC 241:

Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession,
or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege
secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or
because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the
premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise
or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured--
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in
violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an
attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or
both, or may be sentenced to death.

18 USC 241 has nothing to do with race or being an alien. It is the statute under which New Orleans Police Officer Len Davis was convicted for using his position as a Police Officer to order the murder of a witness against him named Kim Groves. Both Davis and Groves were black and both were U.S. Citizens. Davis was subsequently condemned to death by lethal injection and currently awaits execution for his crimes in Federal prison.

With the 2nd Amendment being finally recognized as a fundamental right, government officials should beware. Raids resulting in death that are based on unconstitutional legislation expose the officers who participated in the raid, the supervisors who ordered the raid and every politician who cast a vote in favor of the law to execution. The death does not have to be a murder, it must simply result. A heart attack based on the detonation of a distraction device is enough. Any death resulting from a violation of one's constitutional rights is a capital offense. Something Mayor Daley might want to keep in mind. The Justice Dept. is already considering a request for execution in the case of the four Officers involved in the New Orleans Bridge Murders during Katrina.

 

[bushmaster1313]

241 is for conspiracy and does not have a racial element. This is similar to the non-racial part of 242 but it requires more that one government official.

 

[TexasRifleman]

What I am asking, with all seriousness, is if the courts have ever said that a person has the right to carry a firearm on their person.

Unfortunately that's entirely correct and a very good point to remember. Carrying has not been addressed at all by the Courts.

Yes, the assumption should be that it is since the 2nd says "keep and bear" but it's never mattered before what it said, Heller and MacDonald didn't change that attitude much.

Many court cases to come before we get to address the "bear" part of the Second, but at least the "keep" door has been cracked open.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Many court cases to come before we get to address the "bear" part of the Second, but at least the "keep" door has been cracked open.

Such cases are pending:

Palmer in D.C.
Kachalsky in S.D. N.Y.

 

[05FLHT]

Unfortunately that's entirely correct and a very good point to remember. Carrying has not been addressed at all by the Courts.

Yes, the assumption should be that it is since the 2nd says "keep and bear" but it's never mattered before what it said, Heller and MacDonald didn't change that attitude much.

Many court cases to come before we get to address the "bear" part of the Second, but at least the "keep" door has been cracked open.

Bear was defined in Heller and means to carry. McDonald incorporated the Heller decision against State and local governments. Individuals have the right to keep and "carry" firearms for the core fundamental right of self defense.

As far as waiting for cases to address the bearing of arms, challenges are pending in California, DC and New York.