Today I filed a lawsuit on behalf of my client against the Alachua County Sheriff’s Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest. On September 16, 2025, my client was unlawfully arrested after requesting that trespassers leave his property while openly carrying a firearm, despite clearly established Florida law recognizing a homeowner's right to possess and openly carry a firearm on their residential property. This action seeks redress under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Florida law for the loss of liberty and other damages he suffered as a result of his arrest, detention, and prosecution without probable cause.
ON THE SLOW DEATH OF BIVENS:
The D.C. circuit holds that Americans cannot sue IRS agents who maliciously audit them.
Thanks to this kind of federal immunity, IRS agents now operate in a Constitution-free zone, above the law.
Congress MUST fix the problem of federal immunity.
@BoazOnTrail@Mrgunsngear With the information provided, this one doesn’t sit right with me either. The guy clearly needed mental health help.
I say that as someone who knows many vets with PTSD. This could have easily been one of them.
@Mrgunsngear The “use of force” needs to be addressed across law enforcement as a whole.
I’m not saying many of them don’t deserve it (because most do) only that a baseball bat, or in this case a fat man on his belly with a knife in his hands, cannot be a license for LE to k*ll.
It is being litigated in court by gun right groups such as @FPCAction@gunrights@2AFDN
However Trumps @TheJusticeDept is fiercely defending “prohibited person” laws against non violent felons and even those convicted of misdemeanors.
if democrats can strip the President of the United States of his Second Amendment rights, what do you think they’ll do next time they come into power?
They turn every single gun owner that owns “large capacity magazines” or “assault style weapons” into felons over night.
@TheJusticeDept could get ahead of this now by urging SCOTUS to take “prohibited person” cases against non violent defendants, instead they’ve decided to double down defending such laws.
Yes @POTUS was convicted of 34 felonies. A NY jury found him guilty of all 34 counts. His sentencing was suspended due to him winning the election and he’s currently appealing his case but Trump was convicted of 34 felonies.
The worst part about it is his @TheJusticeDept is still defending 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) in court arguing people like Trump should be disarmed for life.
They could have easily wrote amicus briefs in cases like Melynda Vincent V Bondi urging SCOTUS to strike down “prohibited person” laws as unconstitutional against (people like Trump) convicted of non violent felonies but they fiercely defending such laws in court.
I don’t disagree. But as a matter of law, Trump is in fact a felon, which means he’s barred from ever owning guns again.
My point being, if the democrats can strip someone like the President of the United States of their Second Amendment rights, they can certainly strip average people like you & me.
The @TheJusticeDept can choose not to prosecute or enforce such laws.
I’m not saying they shouldn’t prosecute dangerous / violent criminals or those using firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking. All I’m saying is the DOJ could stop prosecuting or defending “prohibited person” laws in court against defendants such as Melynda Vincent, who was convicted of passings a bad check almost 20 years ago for less than $500.
The @TheJusticeDept fought tooth and nail in court to make sure Melynda Vincent is never allowed to own guns again.
@HarmeetKDhillon could have an amicus brief on the governments part urging SCOTUS to take up Melynda Vincent’s case arguing the law was unconstitutional as applied to people like Vincent, yet the government did the opposite.
Oh I know. Both Republicans & democrats have voted every year since the 1990’s to ensure those rights are never restored.
@AAGDhillon@HarmeetKDhillon wants to keep preaching about “history & tradition” knowing full well, there is nothing in either history, tradition or the constitution that allows the government to disarm citizens for life, yet she continues to defend these laws in court knowing full well they are unconstitutional.
Conveniently, Trump a 34x felon is somehow exempt from permanent disarmament, while @HarmeetKDhillon and her Justice Department prosecutes good people convicted of smoking marijuana or passing a bad check worth less than $500 20+ years ago for exercising their Second Amendment rights.
Why aren’t they changing the definition of “prohibited person” from anyone convicted of any crime in which they *could be* sentenced to up to a year in prison to “Violent or dangerous felons that *Have* been sentenced to 1 year or more in prison?
Trump himself is a 34 time felon. Yet good people that made small mistakes in life decades ago are still permanently disarmed for life. The time to fix that is now.
Make no mistake, democrats will turn all gun owners into “prohibited persons” by any means necessary. It’s only a matter of time. Fix it @HarmeetKDhillon
It’s awesome you’re retweeting @MorosKostas who’s been behind enemy lines for a long time, so this is a much deserved win.
But we have a more pressing matter @HarmeetKDhillon please help us free Tate Adamiak. At this point even a pardon from POTUS would go a long way with the 2A community.
He is the Ross Ulbricht of the 2A community (albeit he’s innocent) but you get my point. Free Tate.
https://t.co/lHPhfPOfmB
The worst part is that nothing ever happens, even when they’re caught perjuring themselves in court. They can lie and commit perjury, and when they’re caught, it’s treated like an “honest mistake” or covered by some “good faith” exception.
Defendants are forced to fight for their lives, emptying their bank accounts in the process, while the police are shielded by qualified immunity.
Like you said, everyone says “back the blue” until it happens to them.