Trump's Ineffective D.C. Crackdown: Nearly 2,000 Officers Made Fewer Than 400 Arrests in 10 Days
And a lot of those were for drug possession, gun possession, and other minor offenses.

Earlier this month, President Donald Trump took control of the police in Washington, D.C.
On August 11, Trump declared a "crime emergency" in D.C., ordering "operational control of the Metropolitan Police Department" (MPD) to be "delegated to the Attorney General." He also authorized the deployment of National Guard troops and other federal law enforcement officers throughout the district. Ever since, federal authorities have been out in force, rounding up suspected criminals as well as motorbikes.
The takeover was nominally meant to protect D.C. residents from violent criminals run amok. But is that actually happening? Or are authorities just rounding people up for possessing drugs and handguns without the government's permission?
The evening of August 11, the White House posted an update. "Multi-agency task forces are hitting the streets of Washington, D.C., cleaning up crime and keeping our neighborhoods SAFE," the post claimed. "In just ONE NIGHT," agents "arrested 37 criminals," "seized 11 illegal firearms," and "issued 4 narcotic charges." In a thread, the White House showed photos of numerous arrestees and listed charges such as "failure to appear for trial on an assault offense," "carrying a pistol without a license," and "possession with intent to distribute."
"There have been over 380 total arrests since the start of the operation on Thursday, August 7," a White House official told Reason on Monday. In the process, "59 firearms have been seized" and "over 160 illegal aliens have been arrested, including known gang members and those with additional charges: assault, kidnapping, burglary, larceny, commercialized sexual offenses, smuggling illegal drugs like heroin, and more."
The official added that on Sunday night alone, "there were a total of 69 arrests" and "6 illegal firearms were seized." There were also arrests for carrying a pistol without a license, driving under the influence, possession with intent to distribute, and "possession of a prohibited weapon—12" knife." Agents also nabbed four people who had arrest warrants for misdemeanor offenses.
This was the result, the official noted, of "22 multi-agency teams" deployed throughout the entire city, encompassing "over 1,950 participants."
The president deployed nearly 2,000 law enforcement officers into a city supposedly teeming with criminals. And yet the effort netted some 380 arrests in 10 days, and many of the charges the administration has bragged about are for low-level nonviolent offenses, such as possession of narcotics or carrying a pistol without a license.
"Congrats on cracking down on crime, but…carrying a pistol without a license isn't a crime, it's a constitutionally protected right," Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) wrote in posts on X. "In high crime areas like DC, people rely on their right to keep and bear arms to keep them safe. I do."
Granted, misdemeanor assaults and driving under the influence should not be dismissed. And while Trump has a history of rounding up supposedly hardened criminal migrants with no criminal records, it's possible some of the "over 160 illegal aliens" arrested in D.C. really are "known gang members" or have committed "assault, kidnapping, burglary, larceny," and more.
But many of the charges hardly merit the involvement of a multiagency federal task force funneling hundreds of agents into the city. Not to mention, the agents being funneled into the capital are not the best equipped to handle the task at hand.
"Federal agents assigned to patrol Washington as part of the federal takeover of the US capital are taking on duties that fall outside their usual jobs, provoking consternation that they've been diverted from work they were trained for to tasks they've never done," wrote Bloomberg's Myles Miller.
"National Guard troops are generally not trained in local policing or de-escalation and should never be used for federal immigration purposes," added the American Civil Liberties Union. "President Trump has also ordered FBI personnel and other federal officers, who similarly are not trained for local policing, to patrol the city."
Nevertheless, the Republican governors of Ohio, South Carolina, and West Virginia all agreed to deploy up to 750 of their own National Guard troops to D.C.
"I'm all for cracking down on crime in DC," Massie wrote, "but arresting law abiding citizens and confiscating their firearms solely because they don't have government paperwork will not ultimately improve public safety. 29 states have proven this by recognizing permitless-carry."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Trump takes 400 criminals off the streets, Lancaster: "give us our criminals back!"
Are they really criminals ? How many of these cases are going to be dropped / dismissed once they get in front of a judge, I wonder. Police get it wrong all the time, how are not-trained-for-law-enforcement troops going to fare after scrutiny ?
Well, when your side is dedicated to coddling criminals, it's not hard to see why the charges get dismissed.
You can't arrest criminals! Leftist judges will just let the all go!
So you're asking Trump to also remove the liberal DAs and judges?
Are they really criminals ? How many of these cases are going to be dropped / dismissed once they get in front of a judge
Given what most of us living in blue hellholes have seen, probably all of them. That's kind of the main part of the problem, yo.
Actually, the DC guard contains a good MP contingent.
District of Columbia Army National Guard
Multi-Agency Augmentation Command, commanded by an O7
74th Troop Command (United States), commanded by an O6
372nd Military Police Battalion ("Red Hand")
Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, 372nd Military Police Company
273rd Military Police Company
275th Military Police Guard Company
276th Military Police Company
If it doesn't solve 100% of crime it isn't worth doing. - Reason.
See also spending cuts, deregulation, etc
Free Minds and Free Nirvanna Fallacy is the new slogan.
I think the tone he's aiming for is that there is no crime to solve so Trump is being ridiculous in putting on a show of force and dealing with crime. There isn't even a consideration that the show of force has been enough on its own to dissuade a large number of criminals from their activities temporarily.
So,…Orange Man Bad.
Apparently there were at least 40 crimes per day to solve. That seems like a lot.
Last year the police in DC averaged over 60 arrests per day. Trump's performative stunt has resulted in fewer people getting arrested!
This would be due to the deterrent effect.
If criminals are better-behaved while this crackdown is occurring, then of course arrests would be down.
Basically, only the most incompetent or arrogant or drugged-out criminals would be busted during a publicly-announced crackdown.
I'm not saying what Trump is doing is right or good, but there is definitely a deterrent effect present in increased law enforcement.
For the first time in years DC went a week without murders and car jackings are down over 60%. Nothing to see here, move along
Trump's Ineffective D.C. Crackdown: Nearly 2,000 Officers Made Fewer Than 400 Arrests in 10 Days
LOL, apparently the definition of "effective" here is arresting and throwing a lot more people in jail, and if crime doesn't plummet by 100% in 24 hours it didn't work.
As Bukele and Broken Windows policing proved, you don't need to throw massive numbers of people in jail to cut back on crime. You throw the marginal percentages that are causing crime in jail, and crime becomes far less of an issue for everyone because those tards aren't out wreaking havoc.
Meanwhile, the DC police union is already releasing data showing that overall crime dropped by 8% in that same time period, while carjackings and robberies have dropped by 83% and 46%. And this is in a city where the public officials are laughingly claiming that crime was already not that bad to begin with.
As Bukele and Broken Windows policing proved, you don't need to throw massive numbers of people in jail to cut back on crime.
What? El Salvador has the highest per capita prison population in the world, increasing their prison population over 400% between 2020 and 2024. They now have over 1600 people in prison per 100,000 citizens. Three percent of Salvadoran adult males in El Salvador are in prison.
This was accomplished by a strongman dictator declaring an emergency suspending constitutional rights such as due process and habeas corpus that rapidly detained over 1% of the population.
Little wonder Bukele gets praised in these comments.
Another despot who is adored by Trump and his defenders is Rodrigo Duterte. Remember him? He was the Philippine president who declared that drug dealers where the cause of all the country's problems, and declared that murdering them was not a crime. Trump praised him for it. Wonder how long until El Hefe Trump declares open season on illegals.
Cite?
The hilarious part about their complaints about Bukele is that he actually tried to work with the cartels after he was elected, in order to keep the violence tamped down. Keep in mind that El Salvador was one of the most dangerous nations in Latin America prior to his presidency.
The cartels responded to his good faith efforts to keep the violence mitigated by massacring 87 people over a three-day span, thinking that would make him back off. Instead, he took it as a sign that they thought they ran the country, and decided to show them otherwise. And that's what has the left so upset about his presidency--not only did he have the audacity to throw their violent retarded vanguard in prison, his popularity in El Salvador skyrocketed because it had empirical results in dropping violent crime through the floor. Leftism thrives on chaos, and El Salvador isn't nearly as chaotic as it used to be. Hence, why they call him a "dictator" as a thought-stopping mechanism, since they can't argue against the results without sounding like disconnected, obtuse morons, such as QB here.
What makes me an obtuse moron? I'm stating facts here. I don't deny that El Salvador was dangerous. I don't deny that Bukele's authoritarian rule and removal of rights was effective at reducing crime. I don't deny that made him popular.
What I do deny is that his approach was remotely libertarian because it is absolutely the opposite.
Your supposition that chaos/crime = leftism leaves much to be desired. Historically chaos and crime have led to authoritarianism of a left or right variety.
What makes me an obtuse moron? I'm stating facts here.
You're not stating shit.
I don't deny that El Salvador was dangerous. I don't deny that Bukele's authoritarian rule and removal of rights was effective at reducing crime. I don't deny that made him popular.
More loaded question-begging.
What I do deny is that his approach was remotely libertarian because it is absolutely the opposite.
Whether it was a libertarian approach is immaterial. That doesn't make him a dictator or whatever loaded pejorative you're trying out here.
Your supposition that chaos/crime = leftism leaves much to be desired. Historically chaos and crime have led to authoritarianism of a left or right variety.
Maybe you ought to think about why chaos and crime lead to "authoritarianism." And yes, leftism absolutely nurtures chaos and crime, dating back to the French Revolution.
Maybe you ought to think about why chaos and crime lead to "authoritarianism."
I know why. Because scared people like you trade freedom for safety.
I know why. Because scared people like you trade freedom for safety.
Maybe if your side weren't composed of a bunch of violent aggressive retards and people who shrug off their behavior as "you get used to it," your false dilemma might find more support.
I don’t even think it is fear as much as a desire to see harm done to others. Those who praise authoritarians never believe they will become the target.
Says this in response to Mike admitting his views lead to violence.
The irony is you both have attacked people like Penny defending themselves.
I don’t even think it is fear as much as a desire to see harm done to others. Those who praise authoritarians never believe they will become the target.
Yes, we should wring our hands over the fact that an aggresively violent gang operation required an aggressive response to actually mitigate it, rather than some vague appeal to freedom that's never fully defined.
Jesse admits he thinks libertarianism, individuals having rights and freedom leads to violence.
QB just called chaos and crime libertarianism.
^ deliberate obfuscation
The irony is you both have attacked people like Penny defending themselves
Nope.
“What I do deny is that his approach was remotely libertarian because it is absolutely the opposite.”
Nobody would seriously claim it as libertarian. There’s not really a “libertarian” solution to violent cartels/criminal organizations.
And violent cartels/criminal organizations is exactly why governments are imbued with the monopoly on legitimate violence, so I don’t think you could qualify actions taken against them as Dictatorial. Heavy handed and authoritarian, absolutely.
Libertarianism is based on property rights. If you don’t have anarchy, then having a government that will protect people’s property rights is a requirement for libertarianism.
I agree that some level of government is necessary in order to protect property rights. The extent to which said government goes about doing that can be more or less authoritarian (obviously libertarians writ large would prefer the less authoritarian approach). I just don’t think that solving these kinds of problems is always going to be towards the “less” end of that spectrum.
I don’t think you could qualify actions taken against them as Dictatorial. Heavy handed and authoritarian, absolutely.
And opposing that is libertarian.
There’s not really a “libertarian” solution to violent cartels/criminal organizations.
Cartels are largely the result of the drug war and political policies that lead to poverty. That's at least the libertarian solution starting point.
“And opposing that is libertarian.”
As with all things, there’s a little more nuance to it than that. Especially when prior governments have perpetuated, ignored, or outright supported the actions of these groups.
“Cartels are largely the result of the drug war and political policies that lead to poverty. That's at least the libertarian solution starting point.”
I agree that ending drug prohibition, like ending alcohol prohibition before it, would go at least some of the way to curb the power and influence these cartels exhibit. But let’s be honest, they consider themselves even more of a de facto government than the Mafia did in NYC or Chicago. Governments never give up their power and influence without a fight.
To me, it’s the intractable problem inherent in dogmatic libertarianism, given the reality of both foreign and domestic policy of the last 50+ years.
These groups will continue to operate even with the end of the drug war. The cartels have avocado farms. Mike has no interest in reality.
So you're saying it's essentially a civil war in El Salvador? I'll buy that, but I won't accept a police state/martial law as a long term solution.
Cartels won't give up power and neither will Bukele.
I go with dogmatic libertarianism because more times than not, intervenention with force causes more problems than it solves. (Exibit 1: everywhere on earth) Humans aren't intelligent enough to see when that will be the case. Most here throw away libertarianism the second they see a solution or even incremental improvement by force. Then when the problems start they just scapegoat democrats or the left. And the debt goes up and the freedoms go away bit by bit.
I'd prefer to take my chances with dogmatic libertarianism, or at least far in that direction from where we are now. I'm surprised there are so few of us dogmatic libertarians here...and so many MAGAtarians.
"I'll buy that, but I won't accept a police state/martial law as a long term solution."
"I go with dogmatic libertarianism because more times than not,"
Presented without further comment.
Edit: Ok just one comment because I can't help myself:
"(Exibit 1: everywhere on earth)"
LMAO.
Is the hive brain finally able to articulate that they reject libertarianism?
I’ll admit I was speaking in a more general sense in regards to Central and South America vs cartels, but essentially yes it’s a de facto civil war. I 100% agree that it is not a long term solution, but I can see where it might be a necessary short term one.
I also agree that hewing more towards dogmatic libertarianism vs dogmatic conservatism or dogmatic progressivism is a much better course, but dogmatic adherence to anything runs the risk of eschewing actual solutions (a lot of perfect being the enemy of good or good enough). Which I think we see a lot of here, especially in the comments, and is to my eye, the source of a lot of the friction between commenters. I disagree that it’s “scapegoating” to highlight Democrat policies and actions that directly led to whatever current thing Republicans are doing. But I’m man enough to own my biases, so you’re welcome to take that disagreement with a grain of salt.
I will say, the comment section has always leaned more “conservatarian” as there have always been few dogmatics to begin with (maybe doctrinaire is a better descriptor).
Also, I wasn’t meaning dogmatic in a pejorative way and I hope you didn’t take offense to it.
I would argue that the "libertarian" or anarchist solution to violent cartels/criminal organizations is the citizen militia.
Form a volunteer army to combat the criminal army.
Most governments prevent this because the government itself is the most criminal of criminal organizations, but if the citizens were able to keep and bear arms and also organize into ongoing citizen militias, criminal organizations would be non-existent.
(At the very least because neighbors would look out for each other and drill alongside each other on a regular basis.)
How is he a dictator? He was elected.
You're right, however, that he rounded up all of the gang members and threw them in jail. And El Salvador went from one of the most violent countries in the world to one of the safest.
How is he a dictator? He was elected.
So was Hitler and Putin and that list goes on and on.
It is not important how one comes to power, but how one exercises power that makes a dictator.
Yes, we realize how much liberaltarians hate it when extremely violent shitholes aren't extremely violent shitholes anymore. Nothing says "freedom" like freedom to be terrorized by violent gang members.
Do we also realize that libertarians respect rights and freedoms and not imprisoning people without due process?
Your argument comes down to saying libertarianism doesn't work, but an authoritarian limited rights state does.
Do we also realize that libertarians respect rights and freedoms and not imprisoning people without due process?
There's that glittering generality again.
Your argument comes down to saying libertarianism doesn't work, but an authoritarian limited rights state does.
False dilemma.
Mike still doesn't know what due process means it seems.
Dew process? The process in which high fructose corn syrup, artificial flavoring, and artificial colors are combined with carbonated HO2 to create a tropical lime soft drink.
False dilemma
You're using that term incorrectly. I am not presenting a dilemma, I'm summarizing your argument.
No, I'm using it correctly. You're presenting two choices as the only options, and deliberately vague ones at that.
This is getting painful. I sincerely hope we don't break QB like sarc, but I fear it.
This is simple. I'll help you out here.
1 My statement was a summary of your argument. At worst it is incorrect, but in this case it is not.
2 A dilemma would be stated as it's either A or B. As in you must choose A or B or only A or B can be correct. But what I said was you think A won't work but B will work. It says nothing of other options along the continuum of libertarianism/authoritarianism. But most importantly, it would have to say either libertarianism or authoritarianism will work.
This is getting painful.
How many times will you jump on the bandwagon attacking me only to slink away when you're shown to be wrong? You better get slinking, Mac.
Reason has been inordinately fond of Zelenskyy in spite of Ukraine doing all of that.
No arguments here.
If it saves one life, its worth it.
By your logic, people who were merely trying to keep us safe during COVID were dictators!
By your logic, people who were merely trying to keep us safe during COVID were dictators!
They were authoritarians. A dictator means a single ruler.
Many states were ruled by their governors daily decrees.
Hitler came in second in both presidential elections where he ran.
He was APPOINTED chancellor by Hindenburg.
Hindenburg was the one who signed the Reichstag Fire Decree.
The Nazi party won only 44% of the vote in the next election.
The enabling act was brought up needing a 2/3 majority, and passed 444 to 94, with all parties except the Social Democrats voting in favor. The Enabling Act, along with the Reichstag Fire Decree, transformed Hitler's government into a de facto legal dictatorship.
Hitler was never elected to run the country.
Thanks for the correction.
I guess I was confused because Hitler came to power legally within a parliamentary system by being appointed as the leader of majority the coalition, but you are correct and I appreciate the education.
And the depressing thing is that Hindenburg hated the Nazis and despised Hitler. And as you point out, every political party except the Socialists voted to make Hitler a dictator. (Every socialist voted against that.) Never before had so many voluntarily caved to a dictator wannabe, and never again -- until now.
Hitler killed millions of Jews.
Bukele put an end to the cartel terrorizing the populace.
Fuck, you're despicable.
^Woke mentality...missing the point and focusing fabricated outrage on a taboo word taken out of context.
Bukele faced an amazingly terrible situation and had to turn it around.
Mass murder and crime are the biggest violations of rights on Earth. Nothing else matters if you can be murdered easily and quickly.
I suppose. Well just have to see how it plays out. If freedom of speech and criticizing the government are tolerated again and other constitutional right are returned once the 30 day emergency (that's still ative since 2022) is ended.
But criminals were treated badly!
Calls for a joint Emma-Autumn article?
The main reason they're upset is that if El Salvador isn't a cartel-dominated violent shithole, there's no reason to import the country's population to the US to serve as peon labor for globohomo.
El Salvador's homicide rate is still double that of England and Wales
What? El Salvador has the highest per capita prison population in the world, increasing their prison population over 400% between 2020 and 2024.
What? El Salvador put around 5% of the population in jail after Bukele took over and turned it into one of the safest countries in Latin America as a result.
Three percent of Salvadoran adult males in El Salvador are in prison.
Right. You're saying that all it took to make El Salvador anything other than the cartel-ridden shithole you want it to be was to put 3 percent of its adult males in prison, who were the aggressively violent retards making it a cartel-ridden shithole for the other 97% of its male population.
Those 3% have more rights and freedoms than the victims of theirs crimes and gangs according to Mike.
People who sacrifice safety for the illusion of freedom deserve neither!
It isnt sacrificing safety. It is holding criminals accountable to agreed to societal laws. People pretending differently are anarchists. And generally they are against self defense.
What about people acting to insure safety to defend freedom?
"Hey, that's just life in Latin America, just like my shithole blue city!" according to QB. It's not unlike the claims that "comprehensive immigration reform" is needed to secure the border, when all that's really needed is to enforce the laws in place. Pigs don't think there's anything wrong with their pigpen.
Anarcho-tyranny is a hard concept for midwits to grasp.
Bingo! Ain't it the truth!
You're saying that all it took to make El Salvador anything other than the cartel-ridden shithole you want it to be was to put 3 percent of its adult males in prison, who were the aggressively violent retards making it a cartel-ridden shithole for the other 97% of its male population
Yes, that's what I'm saying. It's safer for the 97% as far as crime goes.
And left unsaid is how many of that 3% held indefinitely were guilty of crimes?
How many of that 97% would like more freedom and less threat of indefinite imprisonment if they're caught up in a "see something say something" situation or a corrupt local official?
How many of that 97% live in more fear of Bukele than they ever did of the Cartels?
Those people are not better off than they were before. This is something the founders recognized.
Resorting to multiple appeals to ignorance and ending with a flourish of circular reasoning and emotional appeals isn't bolstering your case.
Tell me you know nothing about Central America without telling me that you know nothing about Central America.
Your ignorance on this topic is astounding. There is no parallel to the criminal justice system in the U.S.
What is it you know that I don't?
You've been pwned--let it go.
pwned or PWNED?
And did crime go up or down?
Crime went down drastically.
How dare you use facts!
Don't you know facts are racist?
You do now, you fascist!
Ken used to call Tony out for the perfect solution fallacy. Maybe Lancaster is Tony.
I miss Ken.
I agree that 400 arrests is not necessarily the best measure of 'effective'. The best measure of effective is - does the National Guard successfully emulate cops now? And with 44,675 donuts eaten - for free - by 2000 cops and 700 NG - the answer is yes yes they do.
Cite?
People not committing crimes because there is a police presence nearby capable of responding is better than police being called in and cracking heads. Joe advocates for cracked heads as the metric for success not reduced crime.
>>Ineffective
didn't we do the somebody get this guy a dictionary thing yesterday?
I have no problem with people being arrested for breaking laws. Even stupid ones. It worked for Giuliani in NY, and it will work for Trump in DC. Where I take issue is with the federal takeover. DC voted for Bowser and deserves all the chaos that goes with that conscious choice. If things are bad enough in DC, there's other places Congress can do business. Raven Rock comes to mind.
The federal takeover of a federal district?
Homicide rates in NYC today are half what they were when Giuliani was mayor.
DC is not a state or even independent city. It is a federal district that was granted home rule by Congress with one giant stipulation. Congress and the Federal Government has ultimate authority over it and can take it back at any time. Trump acted in a completely lawful manner. People screeching because it's now possible to walk around without getting mugged or murdered after decades of the left trying its best to destroy it are barking up the wrong tree if they expect sympathy from the majority of Americans.
Trump Is A Dictator didn't work in 2024, what makes anyone on the left think that continuing to shout it will work now?
If you want to make an argument that DC gun laws are unconstitutional, you should stick to that. This is just pathetic.
More leftists peeing their pants because Trump is making the District of Corruption safer and more peaceful, something the liberals in power in DC haven't done since the 1960's.
Wrong.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/violent-crime-dc-hits-30-year-low
Wrong. It's well proven that the statistics being citied by the msm are manipulated to try and hide the crime taking place. Have you not been reading what has been going on in DC?
"59 firearms have been seized"
Add "'Shall not be infringed' really means 'it's ok to infringe'" to the loooong list of things Trump defenders have in common with the left.
With all the things that Trump does that are excused with "Democrats did it first" it's harder to find differences than it is to find commonalities.
the practice prior being the police leave the weapons behind at all arrest scenes?
You mean arresting people for keeping and bearing arms.
Conditional approval of the 2A is yet another thing that Trump and leftists have in common.
Which means his defenders will defend it with the usual "Democrats did it first!" and "You didn't complain when Democrats did it you hypocrite!"
We're these people violent criminals with convictions who can not legally own firearms?
Or are you now arguing criminals cant have rights removed?
GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND 30 minutes ago
If you want to make an argument that DC gun laws are unconstitutional, you should stick to that. This is just pathetic.
It is funny that he cares more about rights of criminals than citizens.
For years he defended parading charges in this very city. Defended capital punishment for trespassing.
But inconvenience a gang member and is abhorrent to sarc. Note he didn't look to see who was caught with guns.
Because 2A rights are a means to the leftists wearing libertarian skin suits, not an end.
Situational libertarianism to support collectivism.
If you are arrested for a crime while carrying a gun and that gun is seized because you are going to jail, does that automatically mean you were charged for a gun crime or have had your 2A rights revoked?
Did your Maddow like rant make sense to you? Do you think those with violent felonies dont lose their gun rights?
I mean you wanted J6ers locked up for 5 years for parading in a public building for a few minutes. Not sure you have any leeway to talk.
GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND 30 minutes ago
If you want to make an argument that DC gun laws are unconstitutional, you should stick to that. This is just pathetic.
That’s not nearly enough information to go off of.
Were they seized from criminals who were already legally barred from owning a firearm?
Were they seized from people in the midst of committing a crime?
Or were they seized off of some poor rando that just wanted to exercise his 2A?
The first two I don’t have a problem with (leaving aside the revocation of rights from someone who didn’t commit a violent crime and served their time). Obviously the third one is bullshit.
The 59 were seized from felons and criminals. You have a coherent point?
Trump uses the military checkpoints to enforce gun laws, drug laws, and arrest people without papers.
His defenders swoon and declare him the most libertarian president ever.
Thanks for the assertion Rachel. Can you back it up?
GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND 30 minutes ago
If you want to make an argument that DC gun laws are unconstitutional, you should stick to that. This is just pathetic.
The federal takeover and National Guard deployments were widely announced. I'd bet 95% or more of the District new about it before the additional boots hit the ground. You think, maybe, the criminals are laying low, minding their Ps and Qs, until better conditions for them arrive?
*knew, not new. I apologize.
You think, maybe, the criminals are laying low, minding their Ps and Qs, until better conditions for them arrive?
Yeah. There's already videos of DC residents saying, "Watch your ass, because these guys aren't fucking around right now." That's par for the course when upscaled law enforcement goes back to its lax former practices.
No. They're heading to Virginia and Maryland.
I had the same thought. I'd be really interested in the crime stat changes in the NCR outside of DC.
Somebody posted the week over week reported crimes this morning all with significant reductions. Criminals are not all stupid and they react to disincentives just like everyone else. If the streets are actively patrolled by the National Guard many will decide to stay home. The point is not to make a lot of arrests. It is to reduce crime and it seems to be working. We were told for decades that there was no possibility of ever reducing crossings at the southern border. But enforcement under Trump got the numbers down to near zero in a couple of months. We don't have to arrest people at the border because they're not showing up anymore. I certainly agree with Massie on the 2A issue but it's assholes like Lancaster that are demanding arrests, completely missing the point of the operation.
If he was a journalist with any measure of integrity he would have included this data. Instead he opts to cite out of context information with nothing to substantiate his premise. It's all about attacking Trump.
"I'm all for cracking down on crime in DC," Massie wrote, "but arresting law abiding citizens and confiscating their firearms solely because they don't have government paperwork will not ultimately improve public safety. 29 states have proven this by recognizing permitless-carry."
They can challenge their prosecutions on 2nd Amendment grounds.
How awesome would it be for the SC to smack down DC harder than they did in Heller?
Sometimes Thomas Massie needs to keep his mouth shut.
Unless he can show that people are being arrested for simply being law abiding citizens with guns he needs to shut the hell up.
He doesn't have to live there.
And, for all that, I'll still be voting for him again.
If you are carrying a gun in DC without a permit, you aren't a law abiding citizen.
Then again, neither is 34x convicted felon Trump.
"solely because they don't have government paperwork"
That is a serious crime. In New York City that gets you a 30 month mandatory minimum prison sentence. It works.
ICE is kidnapping and deporting people who have committed no crime at all.
It is called arresting, not kidnapping
An "arrest" without a warrant is a kidnapping.
MONDAY: Trump's a dictator!!!
TUESDAY: Trump's not dictatoring hard enough!!!
This fucking rag. I realize you have no principles, but at least pick a talking point and stick to it. This stuff is embarrassing.
Pomod means taking the position du jour based on their feelingz.
It's interesting libertarians are the first to say arrests are not the appropriate measure of police success, they should look at the reduction in crime rates. But we see once again whenever there's an opportunity to attack Trump certain Reasoners change their "principles" to whatever they need to be to support an attack on Trump.
Here at Reason we call this Jeffsarc Rules.
They also declare anything Trump or Republicans do to be a failure the moment policies go into effect and no real data is available. Their principles are opposing the right, not anything approaching freedom or honesty.
Yes. Democrats ignore problem for years. No story.
Trump attempts less than perfect solution, with less than perfect results. Big story on how Trump's attempt failed, even if it mostly worked.
Lets be real. Trump cares not about crime in DC, and the crime rate in DC is almost at an all time low. This is about a military occupation of DC by a hostile fascist force.
Nobody’s buying your bullshit.
You think that a 34 count convicted felon, rapist, child molester, fascist cares about petty crime?
GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND 24 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Nobody’s buying your bullshit.
Your troll game stinks out loud; maybe try upping it with fun wrinkles like imagination and coherence. Oh, and stop being a useless retard. Thanks.
Molly supports lawfare as long it is against someone they don't like.
Molly does not understand the difference between civil courts and criminal courts.
Molly is ok with finding guilt based on rumor. So much for due process.
Trump was convicted of 34 felonies in a criminal court.
Trump was found liable for hundreds of millions of dollars of fines in a civil court.
Not rumors. Facts. Documents.
Meanwhile, ICE is kidnapping and deporting people who have committed no crime.
What were these thirty-four felonies?
Who was the victim or victims of these felonies?
"What were these thirty-four felonies?"
First degree falsification of business records.
https://www.npr.org/2024/05/30/g-s1-1848/trump-hush-money-trial-34-counts
The surprise is that they managed to get something to stick, finally. The Trump Organization is as opaque as the Mafia. Usually, nothing is done that can be traced. And note that Trump deflected to his SFO Allen Weisselberg, also now a convicted felon, essentially throwing him under the bus. Trump had been running an Organized Criminal Enterprise for decades; getting him on false business records was like getting Al Capone for tax evasion. There are a huge number of crimes Capone -- and Trump -- committed that never got prosecuted.
Not bullshit about the recent drop in crime. Fact.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/violent-crime-dc-hits-30-year-low
This is entirely bullshit.
I thank god every day I live in a country with free speech rights so I can positively identify idiots like you.
Keep on self identifying. It’s working for you.
I for one welcome the heavy handed FBI stomping on Jamal's side hustle of selling crack and heroin. This is much better use of their time then encouraging someone to say they want to blow up a federal building on 4chan.
So Low it takes the TOP 20 list.
https://getsafeandsound.com/blog/violent-crime-per-capita-by-city/
https://explorecity.life/united-states/rankings/crime
Nothing screams 'failure' like all the criminals deciding to take a vacation for several weeks.
So the NG arrested 11 legal gun owners who merely didn’t have a carry permit. No big deal?
I mean, what is this? You can’t be this deluded. DC has the 4th highest murder rate in the country even with the decline. But only a small fraction of the population commits all the crime. Some are repeat offenders. You keep certain people off the street and discourage carjacking with sheer presence, and you make some progress.
Just scrolled the first page of Lancaster’s bio, going back to 4/1. Not a single pro-2A article. It’s not even one of the tags for this article.
He doesn’t care about gun rights, he cares about Orange Man Bad.
"11 legal gun owners who merely didn’t have a carry permit"
If they didn't have a carry permit, they aren't legal. Lock them up.
Imagine you are standing in the personal care aisle of a DC CVS, backpack at hand, and look up to see a big scary guy in uniform staring at you, tapping a billy club in his hand. You decide to take your business elsewhere, mumbling about the higher price of free stuff.
No arrest, so no measurable effect. Also no shoplifting.
The measurable effect is the reported robberies going down in the next week/month. Lancaster wants the streets to run red now so he can screech about dictator Trump, with this he just has Trump's failure to give Joe his preferred narrative.
No arrest doesn't necessarily mean no measurable effect. CVS's loss prevention is certainly measuring the effects of fewer losses to theft.
The only statistic I trust is murder. Everything else can be trivially manipulated or even just brought down by disillusionment. Los Angeles is 88th in the list of total crime rate. However, I don't see stories about businesses fleeing Houston (30th) because of unchecked crime.
You are sort of correct. It isn't manipulation, though, it is that in some places, crimes are much more likely to be reported. Homicides, however, aren't reported, they are discovered and investigated.
Houston and Dallas have homicide rates 3x that of NYC. The lowest homicide rates in the US are in San Jose, San Diego, San Francisco, Boston, and NYC. Deep blue and strict gun laws. (California's ban on open carry was a Republican idea from the 1960s, and the law was signed by Ronald Reagan. The Republicans didn't like the Black Panthers carrying rifles in public in Oakland and Sacramento.)
Did they control the state legislature at the time.
Narrow Democratic majorities in the Assembly (42-38) and Senate (21-19), but the Mulford Bill passed overwhelmingly (62-9 and 29-7). This was the reason:
https://capitolweekly.net/black-panthers-armed-capitol/
The National Rifle Association did not oppose the law:
https://www.history.com/articles/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act
Rights are for White people.
They aren’t throwing enough people in jail! It’s a failure!
Also
They are throwing too many people in jail! Police state!
Something tells me the author won’t be happy as long as Trump brought it up.
Meanwhile they did nab 169 illegals. That sounds great to me. Lets get em all out of here.
If 400 of the right people are jailed crime can drop considerably. And apparently carjackings have dropped significantly. Save a few lives and maybe it’s worth it? Would it be worth it if it saved your significant other?
It's DC so that 400 of the right people to jail needs to be doubled to account for the 400+ criminals in Congress as well as the run of the mill criminals.
How many would you like arrested in what timeframe, Joe?
I will personally join Truth Social just to convey your desire to Donnie T, Joe and implore him to double, or even triple down on his efforts. I will do that for you, as a favor, seeing as how you're this bothered by it.
No need to thank me, we all need to do our part to help take out the trash in America.
Most of Washington DC should be returned back to Maryland. The state would manage the people and/or criminals within. The federal government would manage the much smaller area that has government offices.
If we got rid of all the criminals in DC who would be left to vote on legislation?
How to demonize Trump no matter what happens:
Trump declares he's going to take over DC because he's a dictator.
Oh wait - since Trump took over, our streets are full of cops and NG standing around doing nothing, when crime isn't bad at all. He's just a dictator.
Reason has become a run of the mill anti-Trump publication. After decades of subscribing, I'm finally going to dump this rag.
"gun possession, and other minor offenses"
Gun possession is not a minor offense. Unless the number of illegal guns is dramatically reduced, Trump's performative stunt will result in an *increase* in crime. Violent crime in New York increased spectacularly when the state started giving long sentences for drug possession and dropped spectacularly when it stopped doing that.
Charlie Hall; WHICH "drugs"?
Mostly marijuana. Over 50,000 in NYC in 2011 alone.
Massie should just get Congress to repeal all of DC's gun laws. Legalize open carry of any firearm without any need for a permit.
A few members of Congress will likely get caught in the crossfires of shooting galleries.
They know that, so they will never repeal the DC gun laws. The pro gun crowd are hypocrites, desiring the protection of gun laws for their own safety.
What? The useless chicken pigs refusing to do their job?
Well knock me over with a feather.
How many arrests did they not have to make?
These numbers don't align with other reports I've seen. Pam Bondi claims 719 arrests which included 36 ICE arrests.
But if you care about ACTUAL justice and ACTUAL truth, you wouldn't make a crude evaluation based on one week of arrest vs one week of added officers. That, itself, highly suggests a politically-motivated narrative being woven. Because that statistic is intended to compare the resources being expended vs the result of the effort. But given that this effort is essentially an intervention, ascertaining actual truth and justice would require a more nuanced assessment that accounts for the complexity of getting the new resources up and running, the complexit of integrating it, a comprehensive assessment of how DC crime relates to the mean or average and how that assessment informs us about how bad it is in DC and, therefore, what should be a rational expectation about "cleaning it up".
I'm just embarrassed that Reason has descended to this level of pseudo-intellectualism. Reason should stand for reason and this article throws reason right under the bus to, apparently, make Trump look bad.
Well, it's Reason that looks bad.
How about giving some time before judgement is made. Rudy Giuliani had it right when he focused on the seemingly small stuff, which set the tone for holding law breakers accountable. It’s a form of deterrence. It just might help. At least Trump is trying to do something. The arm chair critics living in safe neighborhoods can afford to be moralizing; the people who live in unsafe neighborhoods may look at this a little differently.
Didn't read all the comments, but did anyone mention that Joe Lancaster is a slimy pile of lying TDS-addled shit who should fuck off and die?