Couldn't resist this catz no paper picture (PM - 3/29/2007 3:10:17 PM)
Thank you True Blue for thinking through this issue and explaining it.
For the sake of my own curiousity I have decided to try and find out what happened and what laws apply to the situation. I want to understand this situation, rather than spin it.
I start with certain advantages: I am an attorney and I do know the basics of criminal law and criminal procedure. However, my license is in California, not the District of Columbia, and my specialty is corporate taxation, not criminal law or criminal procedure. As such, I will be asking more questions than I answer and I hope that qualified attorneys who are members of the DC bar will chime in with answers. I will not be offering any legal opinions, because clearly this case lies beyond the jurisdiction where I am licensed and the area of the law in which I am competent.
Here are some of the facts as I have been able to glean them from various sources.
Senator Jim Webb, a veteran and a vocal 2nd amendment advocate has a Virginia concealed carry permit and frequently carries a semi-automatic pistol. It is unclear what kind of pistol it is or what caliber. I have heard it described as a 9mm, but Webb carried a .45 caliber when he was Marine, was qualified with it, and apparently was an instructor. A .45 caliber featured prominently in an incident in Vietnam for which Webb was later awarded the Silver Star.
From what I have been able to learn, this is what I think happened: on or about Friday March 23, 2007, Webb was at Reagan National Airport in Virginia preparing to fly to Louisiana with his wife to visit his wife's family. Realizing that he could not fly with his pistol, Webb placed the pistol in a briefcase and placed the briefcase in the trunk of his car. Phillip F. Thompson, Webb's executive assistant, or "body guy" as they are sometimes called, drove Webb's car back home.
On Monday, March 26, 2007, Thompson drove the car with the briefcase in the trunk to the Capitol. Not realizing what was in the briefcase, but unwilling to leave it in the car, Thompson made the fateful decision to carry the briefcase to the Senator's office for him. While undergoing a routine screening at the entrance to the Capitol or a Senate office building, the briefcase was passed through a metal detector and the pistol was detected.
Thompson was confronted by Capitol police at that point and asked for a license. Thompson identified the pistol as belonging to Senator Webb and admitted he did not have a license to carry a pistol in the District of Columbia. At that point, Capitol police arrested Thompson. It's worth pausing here to note that the Capitol police did exactly the right thing in arresting Thompson. Safety is paramount, and it has only been a few years since two Capitol police officers lost their lives in the line of duty due to gun violence. The U.S. Capitol Police are to be commended both for their service in general and their professionalism during this particular incident.
Thompson spent the night in jail and was subsequently arraigned and charged with four felony counts, though no media outlet that I have been able to reach has identified exactly what the charges were or what statutes were allegedly violated.
Having done a little digging, I suspect that at least one of the charges against Mr. Thompson is based on DC ST -º 22-4504, which states in relevant part:
No person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so concealed.Thompson was charged with four felony counts, I suspect at least one was based on this statute. I am trying to find out what, if any, other statutes he may have been charged under.
Now, as to the legal issues underpinning this case. I have more questions than answers. Having looked at DC ST -º 22-4504 and some other related statutes I am unclear on several very important issues. It is on these issues that I hope a DC-licensed attorney will be able to chime in and offer some guidance on. I'll state the most critical of my questions, then I'll try to explain why it seems important to me.
My question is: are the District of Columbia's gun statutes--DC ST -º 22-4504 in particular--intended to define "strict liability" offenses? Some explanation is required for those of you who haven't attended at least the first year of law school.
In criminal law, a "strict liability" crime is crime in which the prosecutor does not have to prove that the defendant had the requisite "mens rea" (translated from the Latin as "guilty mind") or intent. In other words, the prosecutor does not have to show that you knew or understood that what you were doing was wrong: if you violated the statute you are guilty.
Most strict liability crimes are misdemeanors: parking tickets and the like. A handful of strict liability crimes are felonies. The "classic" law school example is statutory rape: it doesn't matter if you believed in good faith that your partner was of age, if you sleep with an underage partner you are guilty of statutory rape. But I digress.
The question for me at this point is: can the District of Columbia hold Mr. Thompson liable for being in possession of Senator Webb's pistol if he didn't know he was in possession of Senator Webb's pistol?
If the District of Columbia's laws on this subject are strict liability, then Mr. Thompson is in trouble because beyond any doubt he was in control of the briefcase that contained Senator Webb's pistol. On the other hand, if mens rea is required--either expressly or implicitly, due to case law or otherwise--then Mr. Thompson need only show that he was unaware of the pistol in the briefcase in order to be found not guilty of the charges. The very fact that Mr. Thompson placed the briefcase in the metal detector suggests one of two things: that he was unaware of the presence of the pistol or that he is the world's least skillful arms smuggler.
As I learn more about the facts of Mr. Thompson's case and the laws that apply, I will be updating and republishing this post.
One charge I would like to deal with tonight is the basically empty charge that some have made that Webb should have "done something" to "get his aide off the hook." The Republicans bloggers who made such accusations have unconsciously indicted themselves and the entire Republican Party. The idea that an elected official should "pull strings" or otherwise seek to affect the outcome of an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution is simply wrong. I am certain that Senator Webb is offering all the support that lies within his power to give: assistance with the legal costs associated with Mr. Thompson's legal defense, moral support, legal advice (Webb is an attorney with criminal defense experience) and any other support that is within his power to provide legally. The Republican accusations in this case do more to shine light on the underlying causes of the unfolding U.S. Attorney scandal than explain Webb's reaction to Thompson's plight.
None of the above is meant to exculpate Senator Webb from what I think was irresponsible behavior regarding the carrying and storage of his pistol and its ammunition. As much as I like and admire Senator Webb, I cannot help but conclude that his actions fell short of responsible gun ownership and handling, a fact that is all the more disappointing considering his level of experience with firearms.
Although licensed in DC I long ago stopped taking cases there and do not feel competent to answer the very interesting questions you raise. I do recall that back in the 80s it was common for such incidents to be treated as misdemeanors and the biggest sanction a stern lecture from the judge. I witnessed this a few times from Judge Ugast, for whom I interned, and clearly remember a sweet little old lady from Alabama who was caught bringing a handgun into the Capitol. She was mighty upset about the automatic forfeiture of the weapon. but the charge was dismissed. If indeed Webb placed the gun in a briefcase himself then that would account for his statement that he did not give it to Phillip Thompson. Even if strict liability applies, the sheer unfairness of holding Mr. Thompson responsible for something he didn't even know about should result in a no paper from the prosecution. Lord knows, they no paper enough real criminal cases which should be prosecuted.
Thank you True Blue for thinking through this issue and explaining it.
have cats?
The AP story after Thompson's arraignment said: He has been charged with carrying a pistol without a license and carrying an unregistered firearm and unregistered ammunition.
You will wait a long time before a general news story names the statutes under which a person is charged.
While I appreciate the spirit in which this diary was written, your closing passage seems to depart from it:
his actions fell short of responsible gun ownership and handling
You have no idea, like the rest of us, of what the facts are in this case. You don't even know what the gun was, much less whether or not it was loaded (the AP story quoted above says it was, but press stories say it was, but media ignorance of guns is rampant, and several other flatly inaccurate statements about the events leading to Thompson's arrest were reported in the media and on this blog). So it's a bit early to get preachy.
Concealed carry permits and gun licenses are a matter of public record, if any reporter were interested enough to actually do some reporting.
However, now that the issue has died down in the news media for the immediate future, I will not engage here in any debate that could be inflammatory or misleading.
Most likely, the facts will come out at the hearing in early May, and I am content to give Phillip a rest and wait until then to see them.
In the meantime, he and Jim Webb and his staff members should have plenty to keep them busy.
Thanks.
Steve