D.C. “30 armed officers in full tactical gear….”

by Walter Olson on October 25, 2013

“…based their search on a charge made by [his] estranged wife.” What, no armored vehicles? After tearing up the Georgetown home of businessman Mark Witaschek, police say they found some ammunition — which is unlawful to possess in D.C., even spent shells and casings, unless you are a licensed gun owner — but Witaschek says he is standing on principle and turned down a probation plea. [Washington Times]

{ 4 comments }

1 William Nuesslein 10.25.13 at 8:22 am

Some time ago prosecutors changed their nature from seekers of truth and justice to advocates for victims. One woman I know of was accused of being physically abusive of her son by a divorcing husband who needed custody of the child to stay in the United States. The woman was a smoker and of course youngsters clawing over smokers wil brush against the business end of a cigarette every so often. Those occasions morph into extinguishing cigarettes on a child. The woman had to pay a chaperone to be in the room when she visited her son.

The sited case seems a taking of a divorcing spouse’s word too seriously. “Better safe than sorry” can generate all kids of mayhem.
It is unfortunate that people can not see themselves as the fools they are. Shaming doesn’t work.

2 En Passant 10.25.13 at 11:44 am

I’m shocked but not surprised.

I’m not surprised because Washington, DC is a Constitution-free zone. I hope Mr. Witaschek survives the gulag.

I’m shocked because I once believed that even government officials maintained at least a shred of ordinary human decency.

3 anonymous 10.25.13 at 6:55 pm

> police say they found some ammunition —
> which is unlawful to possess in D.C.,
> even spent shells and casings,
> unless you are a licensed gun owner

or unless your name is David Gregory.

4 VMS 10.26.13 at 8:03 pm

I think Mr. Witaschek has a very good case. It seems that the District of Columbia Court of Appeals found the law, under which he was charged, unconstitutional back in November 2010. Herrington v United States, 6 A.3d 1237, (DC Ct. of App. 2010) (holding that “[a]s a corollary of the U,S. Supreme Court’s holding in DC v. Heller, the unlawful possession of ammunition statute for simply possessing handgun ammunition in the home also violates the Second Amendment. See for yourself:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/dc-court-of-appeals/1543809.html

Comments on this entry are closed.