The Volokh Conspiracy
[Eugene Volokh, April 28, 2007 at 12:43am] Trackbacks
Gun Charges Dropped Against Sen. Webb's Aide:

AP reports:

Authorities dropped charges Friday against an aide to Virginia Sen. Jim Webb who carried a loaded gun into the U.S. Capitol complex.

"After reviewing and analyzing all of the evidence in the case, we do not believe the essential elements of the crime of carrying a pistol without a license can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt," U.S. Attorney Jeff Taylor, top prosecutor in the District of Columbia, said in a short statement.

Webb senior aide Phillip Thompson, 45, was arrested on March 26 after Capitol Police spotted the loaded pistol and two other loaded magazines in a briefcase being scanned by an X-ray machine at the entrance of the Russell Senate office building.... Webb told reporters Thompson had carried the gun into the building "completely inadvertently."

Thanks to Dan Gifford for the pointer.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Gun Charges Dropped Against Sen. Webb's Aide:
  2. Senators (or Representatives) and Guns:
  3. Gun Possession by Senator Webb's Aide:
Fred Thompson (mail):
So when is Webb going to be charged?
4.28.2007 1:03am
Bob Leibowitz (mail) (www):
I'm certain that the Federal and District prosecutors would extend the very same courtesy to any one of us under similar circumstances.

Or, maybe not...
4.28.2007 2:41am
James968 (mail):
For most other people the essential elements to form the crime is a lot loser.
4.28.2007 3:21am
James968 (mail):
Though I do agree, it was probably accidental or possibly unknowingly committed.
4.28.2007 3:22am
Thomas Alan (mail):
Jeez, Allen's aide brings a gun and gets the charges dropped. They find bribe money in Jefford's freezer and they still haven't charged him. McKinney punches a police officer and is never charged. Patrick Kennedy crashes a car into a Capital barricade, stumbles around, and doesn't even get a sobriety test.

I don't want to hear anything about the Democrats being persecuted.
4.28.2007 6:57am
Thomas Alan (mail):
Jeez, Allen's Webb's aide brings a gun and gets the charges dropped.
4.28.2007 6:58am
skooby:
They find bribe money in Jefford's freezer and they still haven't charged him.

That's supposed to be "Jefferson," right? Jeffords was a Republican, then an independent.
4.28.2007 7:21am
PersonFromPorlock:
Just one of those things that happens in the penumbra of the Important People Clause.
4.28.2007 7:49am
Paul S. (mail) (www):
I'm confused. Does the U.S. Attorney prosecute violations of local DC law? If so, how does that work? And if not, is there a federal statute that allows for the carrying of a pistol if you have a license? Otherwise, I don't understand what Jeff Taylor is talking about.
4.28.2007 10:53am
gattsuru (mail) (www):
I was under the impression that there were no local DC attorneys, as it's a federal location, but I'm not particularly familiar with the laws.

It's another ridiculous example of how Important People get away with stuff you or I would end up in court or prison over. You'd think Congress critters would at least make sure they were capable of paying attention to the laws they put forward, but only if you weren't paying attention.
4.28.2007 11:00am
Alan Gura:
The U.S. Attorney prosecutes D.C. felonies in the Superior Court, and federal felonies in U.S. District Court.

The D.C. Attorney General's office (until recently the Office of Corporation Counsel) prosecutes misdemeanors in the Superior Court.

Carrying a pistol without a license in public is a felony charge so it is the U.S. Attorney's responsibility to prosecute it. Carrying a pistol without a license in one's home is was a misdemeanor charge so it is was the D.C. Attorney General's responsibility to prosecute such charges.
4.28.2007 12:49pm
Jacob (mail):
It's another ridiculous example of how Important People get away with stuff you or I would end up in court or prison over.
I'm not sure that's entirely it. I have no doubt Important People get away with many things others wouldn't get away with, and that shouldn't be the case. And there's an argument for why this sort of law should be strict liability. At the same time, I would want law enforcement to be more suspicious of someone visiting the Capitol for the first time who had "accidentally" brought a gun than a congressional aide who's presumably there all the time who "accidentally" brought a gun. To the extent one should take the likelihood of ill intentions into account, it's a lot less likely an aide possessed them than you or I.
4.28.2007 1:31pm
Paul S. (mail) (www):
Alan,

Thank you. That's clarifying.
4.28.2007 2:04pm
Dan S:
Jacob,

While I agree in principle with what you say, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with disarming one side and not the other in Congress. Especially with the language one side spews regularly. Better to keep things even in the arm race...

Of course, the real problem is that guns are restricted at all. I bet the language in the Capitol would moderate a lot if everyone was armed. Or dueling would come back in.
4.28.2007 2:38pm
Brooks Lyman (mail):
Yes. Consider what would have happened to you if you were the one to drive off the bridge on Chappaquiddick 45 odd years ago....
4.28.2007 6:44pm

PicoSearch
Help