Webb says it was his gun that that led to aide's arrest

Associated Press ^ | June 17, 2007 | Associated Press

[angkor]

The prosecution's decision to drop the case may have represented their assessment that they could not establish the aide's intention

I had completely forgotten they dropped the case.

In any case, we don't have a misunderstanding, we're just thinking about different aspects of the incident.

You're focusing on the "intention" and "knowingly" issues - which I agree could have been exculpatory - while I'm looking at DC's apparent lack of jurisdiction to even consider prosecution.

First, he Senate rules permit transport of firearms by "members and their staff" on Congressional property ("transport" meaning unloaded and not concealed on one's person). Second, the Capitol Police and not DC Police have primary jurisdiction on Congressional grounds.

On those two points alone the aide shouldn't have been arrested and transferred to DC custody. No crime was committed.

But let's take it a step further. To get the firearm to Congressional property required transport on DC streets, which clearly are within the jurisdiction of the DC police.

So in the end DC was left with the foolish proposition that "the firearm was transported on the streets of DC to Congressional grounds, some way, somewhere and somehow." So long as everyone remained silent it was incumbent on DC to prevail on that proposition with no witnesses, no admisssions, and no evidence beyond a flimsy deduction.

Moreover, DC would (very likely) have been forced to assert that its silence on "peaceable journey" trumps federal laws permitting "peaceable journey", which this most clearly was. That argument would also have been compromised by (from what I understand) the "peaceable journey" from the DC line to the Senate parking lot was almost entirely on a federal interstate highways (I-395 goes almost directly from the Potomac River and the Virginia state line, to Congressional grounds).

So in the end DC really had several major obstacles to overcome, and - yes - "intentionality" might just have been one more of those.

[William Tell]

angkor said: "So in the end DC really had several major obstacles to overcome,..."

Since Congress has the ultimate power to exercise control over all of DC, it might be hard to argue that DC policies do not extend to Capitol areas, unless the legislation covering DC explicitly states so. Maybe it does.

I sure don't mind seeing any Senator face troubles over anti-gun laws. Most such instances make it abundantly clear how unjust it is to have any law-abiding citizen face these problems. Much better a Senator's aide spend the night in jail rather than me or mine. Respecting the Second Amendment would make life easier as far as I am concerned.

[William Tell]

angkor said: "So long as everyone remained silent it was incumbent on DC to prevail on that proposition with no witnesses, no admisssions, and no evidence beyond a flimsy deduction."

Well, not quite.

One person who might face jeopardy is ... Webb.

As I pointed out already, Webb probably can't provide testimony that is conclusive regarding the aide's KNOWING that a gun was present. Nor can Webb testify as to what means were used to transport the firearm through prohibited territory. So there is little prospect for being able to charge the aide and convict.

But the same is not true regarding charging and convicting Webb. One simply compels testimony from the aide. Immunity from prosecution would have to be provided. The aide could then detail the custody of the firearm being transferred to him by Webb in the prohibited area. It might be a piece of cake to convict the Senator, though he can't be arrested while Congress is in session. Maybe Webb will be arrested on such a charge when Congress recesses.

This provides great justification for Webb to say nothing incriminating. To the extent that the aide can't substantiate criminality on the part of Webb, it would be prudent for Webb not to provide that evidence through his own admissions.

One's expectation that Webb will, in fact, vote pro-gun in the Senate is bolstered by the personal damage done to him by these unConstitutional laws. That's a good thing.