AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Firearms Related: Licenses, Regulations & Other Issues
The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking to hold the United States government liable for negligently performing a background check on Dylann Roof, the person who entered a church in Charleston, South Carolina and opened fire, killing nine worshippers. It was undisputed that if the background check had been performed properly, it would have prevented him from purchasing the firearm he used. The trial court dismissed these claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A federal appeals court reversed, holding that neither the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) nor the Brady Act's immunity provision in 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(6) afforded the federal government immunity in this case. In regard to the FTCA, the court held that this case turned on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Examiner’s alleged negligence in failing to follow a clear directive, and that the government could not claim immunity under these circumstances. The appeals court further held, however, that the district court did not err by concluding that the government could not be held liable under the FTCA for declining to give Examiners access to the FBI’s National Data Exchange (N-DEx), and also rejected a claim that the government violated a mandatory directive by failing to maintain data integrity during the NICS background check. In regard to the Brady Act, the court held that the trial court erred in construing 18 U.S.C. 992(t)(6) to bar plaintiffs' claims where the plaintiffs sued the government rather than any federal employee, and the federal employees whose conduct formed the basis of this suit were not responsible for providing information to the NICS system. Sanders v. United States, #18-1931, 937 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2019).
Whether or not state officials were
authorized under Connecticut state law to inquire into an applicant's
citizenship or legal residence when deciding whether to grant him renewal of a
firearms permit, demanding proof of citizenship or legal residence in
connection with such renewals was not so outrageous or shocking as to
constitute a violation of constitutional due process. The plaintiff did,
however, state a procedural due process claim based on the alleged months-long
delay in processing such renewal applications. Kuck v. Danaher, #08-5368, 2010
U.S. App. Lexis 5899 (2nd Cir.).
The U.S. Supreme Court,
by a 5-4 vote, ruled that a D.C. ordinance banning handgun possession and
requiring that lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded or bound by a trigger
lock violates the Second Amendment. The Court found an individual
constitutional right to possess a firearm for use for lawful purposes, such as
self-defense within the home. District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, 2008
U.S. Lexis 5268.
Holders of concealed weapon permits did not have
a right to enter a courthouse without submitting to a magnetometer search for
firearms. Conducting such searches, which were carried out along with a posted
notice that it was a crime to possess a weapon in a court facility did not
violate the plaintiffs' rights under Pennsylvania law, and there was no
reasonable expectation of privacy barring such searches. Minich v. County of
Jefferson, Pennsylvania, No. No. 1750 C.D. 2006, 2007 Pa. Commw. Lexis 119.
Federal appeals court rules that the Second Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution protects the right of an individual to keep and bear
firearms, and that exercise of that right is not limited to persons enrolled in
a state militia or National Guard unit. Court reinstates lawsuit seeking to
challenge D.C. laws prohibiting the registration of handguns, requiring a
license to carry a pistol, and mandating that all firearms lawfully owned in
the District be contained in a trigger lock or else be kept disassembled and
unloaded. Parker v. D.C., No. 04-7041, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
City and police officers did not violate an
arrestee's Second Amendment right to bear arms or his Fourteenth Amendment
right to due process before being deprived of his property when his handgun was
taken away during his arrest for various criminal charges, and was subsequently
destroyed on court order. The court noted that the confiscation of one weapon
did not infringe on the arrestee's right to lawfully acquire another weapon,
and that the arrestee was provided with notice of the court hearing regarding
the disposition of his pistol, and was in attendance at the court proceeding at
which theorder for its destruction was issued. Garcha v. City of Beacon, No. 04
CIV.5981, 351 F. Supp. 2d 213 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
While a convicted felon had no right to
personally possess the firearms that were seized from his home, he did have
some property rights in the weapons which were protected under state law.
Accordingly, further proceedings were required on his claim that the county, by
continuing to retain the weapons, and refusing to either restore the property
to him through a designee or through the sale of the property and remittance of
the proceeds to him violated the due process and eminent domain portions of the
Maryland state constitution. Serio v. Baltimore County, No. 17, Sept. Term
2004, 863 A.2d 952 (Md. 2004). [N/R]
Sheriff's office employees acting in good faith
were immune, under Washington state statute, from liability for any alleged
errors in connection with preparing or transmitting information in the process
of determining an applicants eligibility to receive or possess a firearm, or
eligibility for a concealed pistol license. Applicant who was at first denied
purchase of a pistol on the basis of incorrect information could not,
therefore, collect damages. Deschamps v. Mason County Sheriff's Office, No. 30432-5-II,
96 P.3d 413 (Wash. App. Division 2 2004). [N/R]
Statute prohibiting firearms purchase by persons
convicted of crimes punishable by more than one year of imprisonment was not
designed to punish, but was aimed at promoting public safety, so that its
retroactive application did not impermissibly increase the plaintiff's
punishment. Plaintiff, who was convicted in 1962 of a larceny charge based on
stealing beer worth $3.38, and was denied the right to purchase a rifle
thirty-eight years later on the basis of that conviction, could still pursue a
claim that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him, so further
proceedings are ordered on that claim, which the lower court improperly
dismissed. Lehman v. Pennsylvania State Police, 839 A.2d 265 (Pa. 2003). [N/R]
California county's ordinance banning the
possession of firearms on county property did not violate the First Amendment
rights of gun show promoters or improperly regulate commercial speech. State
gun regulations did not preempt county's ability to regulate gun shows, and
federal appeals court declines to address Second Amendment argument, finding
that it involves a collective right to bear arms only assertable by the states,
and not by individuals. Nordyke v. King, #99-17551, 319 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.
2003). [2003 LR Aug]
333:134 Running of one year statute of
limitations to bring a federal civil rights claim over alleged political
discrimination in revocation of store's firearms sales license and raid on
store accrued on the day of the raid and a lawsuit filed 23 years after the
fact was time barred even if plaintiffs claimed they did not learn the reason
for the raid until later. Ramos v. Roman, 83 F.Supp. 2d 233 (D. Puerto Rico
2000).
327:40 Alabama man had no federally protected
right to act as a private detective in a county; sheriff not liable for denial
of pistol permit which applicant alleged was required for private detective's
license to be issued. Moates v. Strength, 57 F.Supp. 2d 1305 (M.D. Ala. 1999).
322:149 No clearly established law, in 1969-70 or
now, granting an individual a constitutional right to have a gun dealers'
license despite alleged support of organizations engaged in violent activities.
Rivera-Ramos v. Roman, #98- 1021, 98-1022, 98-1023, 156 F.3d 276 (1st Cir.
1998).
278:26 Even though state police violated Maryland
state law in turning down, on the basis of past arrests, woman's application to
purchase handgun, applicant could not collect damages for violation of federal
civil rights; state law remedies were adequate and federal appeals court rules
that Second Amendment does not apply to the states Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d
120 (4th Cir. 1995).
278:25 City was not liable for alleged unlawful
revocation of man's pistol licenses in absence of a showing of a municipal
policy or custom causing the revocation; individual police defendants entitled
to qualified immunity despite plaintiff's claim they revoked his licenses on
the basis of his nationality when there were other reasons for revocation Liu
v. New York City Police Department, 627 N.Y.S.2d 683 (A.D. 1995). [Cross-
references: Defenses: Qualified (Good-Faith). Immunity; Governmental Liability:
Policy/Custom]
Police department was not liable to shooting
victim for alleged inadequate compliance with requirement that criminal record
of handgun purchaser by checked Scott v. Malcolm, 56 Ohio App. 3d 166, 565
N.E.2d 869 (1989), reported (1991).
County sheriff's revocation, without hearing, of
license to carry a concealed firearm, did not violate due process; licensee had
no constitutionally protected property right to such license Nichols v. County
of Santa Clara, 273 Cal.Rptr. 84 (Cal App. 1990).
Revoking weapons permit entitles plaintiff to
hearing Baker v. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, 474 A.2d 115 (Conn Super
1984).
Citizens allowed to sell handguns; state law
prevails over local ordinance Dwyer v. Farrell, 475 A.2d 257 (Conn 1984).
Police officer cannot recover from city for
issuance of gun permit to dangerous person who shot him Satiro v. City of New
Rochelle, 476 N.Y.S.2d 377 (App. 1984).
Confinement for misdemeanor grounds to revoke
firearms permit Baker v. Illinois Dept of Law Enforcement, 464 N.E.2d 1260 (Ill
App. 1984).
Illinois village's handgun ordinance prohibiting
handgun possession upheld; court calls it first of its kind in the nation
Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1983).
Local ordinance on ammunition preempted by state
law Montgomery County v. Atlantic Guns, Inc, 489 A.2d 1114 (Md App. 1985).
Burglary suspect shot and killed when he grabbed
officer's gun; city could be liable for its policy of requiring police to hold
gun on suspects during handcuffing, "inviting them to lunge" for
weapon and be killed Dodd v. City of Norwich, 815 F.2d 862 (2nd Cir. 1987).