&w=3840&q=100)
You can now carry rifles, shotguns in Washington DC without facing charges: New policy after Trump takeover
Federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C. have been directed not to pursue felony charges against people caught carrying rifles or shotguns in the city, a dramatic departure from long-standing practice. The instruction, confirmed by US Attorney Jeanine Pirro in an email obtained by The Washington Post, follows guidance from the Justice Department and its solicitor general.
Until now, D.C.'s law barring residents from carrying long guns with only limited exceptions had been used in several notable prosecutions, including the 2016 'Pizzagate' incident, when an armed man stormed a local restaurant and a 2019 case involving a shotgun attack in Northeast Washington.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The policy shift coincides with President Donald Trump's aggressive expansion of federal law enforcement in the capital, a campaign touted as a crackdown on illegal firearms. White House officials have pointed to the seizure of 68 weapons since the start of the initiative. Yet the new stance raises questions about how many of those cases will result in charges.
Pirro, who took over as the city's chief federal prosecutor earlier this month and is a close Trump ally, stressed that her office will continue to prosecute violent crimes and weapons trafficking cases involving rifles or shotguns. Handgun cases, which make up the majority of gun-related prosecutions in D.C., are also unaffected.
In a statement, Pirro was quoted by the Washington Post as saying that the District's ban on carrying rifles and shotguns conflicts with Supreme Court rulings that have expanded gun rights, notably District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). Both decisions held that restrictions not grounded in US historical tradition cannot stand.
'President Trump and I remain fully committed to prosecuting gun crime,' Pirro said. 'But we will do so in ways consistent with the Constitution and the laws of the land.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Judge denies Justice Department request to unseal Epstein grand jury transcripts
A federal judge in New York has rejected the government's request to unseal grand jury transcripts of late financier and child trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. The ruling Wednesday by federal Judge Richard Berman in Manhattan came after the judge presiding over the case against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend, also turned down the government's request. Judge Berman said the information contained in the Epstein grand jury transcripts 'pales in comparison to the Epstein investigative information and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice.' According to Berman's ruling, no victims testified before the Epstein grand jury. The only witness, the judge wrote, was an FBI agent 'who had no direct knowledge of the facts of the case and whose testimony was mostly hearsay.' The agent testified over two days, on June 18 and July 2, 2019. The rest of the grand jury presentation consisted of a PowerPoint slideshow shown during the June 18 session and a call log shown during the July 2 session, which ended with grand jurors voting to indict Epstein. Both of those will also remain sealed, Berman ruled. Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence after her conviction on sex trafficking charges for helping Epstein sexually abuse girls and young women. Maxwell's case has been the subject of heightened public focus since an outcry over the Justice Department's statement last month saying that it would not be releasing any additional documents from the Epstein sex trafficking investigation. The decision infuriated online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of President Donald Trump's base who had hoped to see proof of a government cover-up. Since then, Trump administration officials have tried to cast themselves as promoting transparency in the case, including by requesting from courts the unsealing of grand jury transcripts. 'The government is the logical party to make comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein file,' Berman wrote in an apparent reference to the Justice Department's refusal to release additional records on its own while simultaneously moving to unseal grand jury transcripts. 'By comparison,' he added, 'the instant grand jury motion appears to be a 'diversion' from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the Government's possession. The grand jury testimony is merely a hearsay snippet of Jeffrey Epstein's alleged conduct.' Epstein died on July 23, 2019, in jail awaiting trial. While his death was ruled a case of suicide, it has been the subject of conspiracy theories, with many claiming that Epstein was killed in an effort to silence him.
The Hindu
2 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Punishing process: On gender identity recognition
The Manipur High Court's order to the State to issue fresh academic certificates to Beoncy Laishram is at once a matter of individual justice and a larger commentary on the state of transgender rights. What should have been a simple administrative correction became a legal battle, not because the law lacks provisions but because its implementation remains frustrated by inertia and bureaucratic rigidity. In NALSA vs Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised the right to self-identify gender and ordered the state to treat transpersons as socially and educationally backward classes entitled to welfare measures. The principle was codified in the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2019, which also obligated authorities to recognise a person's self-identified gender and issue official documents. Together with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, transpersons are thus entitled to having their affirmed identity seamlessly recognised in all institutional records. Yet, their lived reality is very different. Despite the law being clear on self-identification, bureaucratic setups often do not act unless compelled by higher authorities. In Dr. Laishram's case, her university refused to update her educational records citing procedural hurdles — symptomatic of a systemic malaise. Administrators routinely defer to the most restrictive reading of procedure rather than the spirit of the law. In the present matter, the university and education boards insisted that corrections must begin with the earliest certificate, qualifying recognition on a cascading set of bureaucratic approvals. Where the law envisages gender as a matter of self-determination for transgender individuals, many officials remain wedded to the binary markers assigned at birth, and the mismatch translates into a stunted application of a simple idea. The insistence on sequential corrections or elaborate justifications is essentially a refusal to accept that gender identity is not derived from paperwork. Dr. Laishram's struggle also shows how institutional reluctance to operationalise this principle forces transpersons into prolonged legal contests over what should be routine matters. Such episodes reveal a troubling truth: transpersons, navigating stigma and discrimination, are forced to expend disproportionate time and resources to access rights that are legally theirs. The High Court judgment is undoubtedly positive: it also sets a precedent that may help other transpersons and signals to administrators that procedural rigidity cannot override constitutional and statutory guarantees. Bridging the gap between legal rights and their application will require both institutional reform and cultural change within the bureaucracy that draw from an understanding of gender as lived reality.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 minutes ago
- Business Standard
US examines equity stake in chip makers for CHIPS Act cash grants: Report
US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is looking into the government taking equity stakes in Intel and other chipmakers in exchange for grants under the CHIPS Act, which aims to spur factory-building in the US, two sources said. As part of a plan to revive US manufacturing - a key Trump agenda - Lutnick said earlier on Tuesday the US government wants an equity stake in Intel in exchange for cash grants approved by the administration of former President Joe Biden. Now Lutnick wants to expand that plan to other companies, according to a White House official and a person familiar with the situation. The Trump administration has recently made unusual deals with US companies, including allowing AI chip giant Nvidia to sell its H20 chips to China in exchange for the US government receiving 15 per cent of those sales. The Pentagon is slated to become the largest shareholder in a small mining company to boost output of rare earth magnets. The government's intervention in corporate matters has worried critics who say President Donald Trump's actions create new categories of corporate risk and that a bad bet could mean a hit to taxpayer funds. Much of the funding under the CHIPS Act has not yet been dispersed for companies such as Micron, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co, Samsung and Intel. TSMC and Intel declined to comment. Micron, Samsung and the White House did not respond to requests for comment on whether Lutnick is considering more stakes. The two sources told Reuters on Tuesday that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is also involved in the CHIPS Act discussions, but that Lutnick is driving the process. The Commerce Department oversees the $52.7 billion CHIPS Act money. Lutnick has been pushing the equity idea, the sources said, adding that Trump likes the idea. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed earlier that Lutnick was working on a deal with Intel to take a 10 per cent government stake. "The president wants to put America's needs first, both from a national security and economic perspective, and it's a creative idea that has never been done before," she told reporters. Speaking on CNBC, Lutnick said the US wants a return on its "investment". "We'll get equity in return for that ... instead of just giving grants away," he said. Trump has previously said he wanted to kill the CHIPS Act program. Lutnick's comments suggested any stake would be non-voting, meaning it would not enable the US government to tell the company how to run its business. His comments came a day after SoftBank Group agreed to invest $2 billion in Intel, which has struggled to compete after years of management blunders. "The Biden administration literally was giving Intel money for free and giving TSMC money for free, and all these companies just giving the money for free, and Donald Trump turned it into saying, 'Hey, we want equity for the money. If we're going to give you the money, we want a piece of the action for the American taxpayer'," Lutnick said. South Korean presidential advisor Kim Yong-beom said neither the government nor the potentially affected companies have heard about such a plan. He added that foreign companies like Samsung needed "predictability" for their US investments. A Korean chip industry official, meanwhile, said it would be hard for chipmakers to accept US government equity stakes, and some may either decide not to invest or delay investments unless Washington provides incentives like increasing funding. Taking lawmaker questions in Taipei on Wednesday and asked whether the US government could take a stake in TSMC, Taiwan Economy Minister Kuo Jyh-huei said his ministry would consult with the company, which he pointed out was private and not a state-owned enterprise. "We will also discuss with the National Development Council, as it is a shareholder of TSMC. We will thoroughly understand the underlying meaning of the US Commerce Secretary's remarks, but this will require some time for discussion and assessment," Kuo said.
