New Policy
A new policy put in place by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (DC) is playing out in a troubling manner and deserves another look in the case of Tinsley Bowman.
In mid-August, US Attorney Jeanine Pirro (DC), announced that her office would no longer be charging people in DC with felonies for violating the ban on carrying rifles and shotguns without permits – and would go back retroactively for some of those already penalized by the ban.
The policy change does not affect carrying a handgun without a permit in DC – those violations are still subject to prosecution. The policy also is not intended to prevent the government from prosecuting people who use firearms during the commission of a crime or those who possess firearms in violation of prohibitions stemming from certain criminal convictions.
The policy change was made to honor the rights of law-abiding citizens seeking self-protection, and the change was said to be in accordance with two Supreme Court cases: District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008, and N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 2022.
In general, I’m not in favor of firearms bans that limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. So, the decision to no longer prosecute those in DC who possess a rifle or shotgun in public, and who are doing so legally, but for the local “ban,” doesn’t cause me concern.
But the policy change has apparently played out in a troubling way in at least one case, and it deserves re-evaluation.
The case of Tinsley Bowman
Last year, Tinsley Bowman was arrested for possessing an AR-15 styled rifle in violation of the DC ban. According to the Washington Post, “Bowman was sentenced to serve six months in jail and given a year of probation, set to end in January 2026.” The ban carries with it a possible prison term of up to five years.
As a result of the policy change, during court last week and the DC US Attorney’s Office requested the judge to end Bowman’s probation and advised Bowman’s defense attorney to seek to vacate the conviction from his record.
After hearing the request, the judge advised Bowman,
“Do you understand what’s happening right now, Mr. Bowman? So, what the United States is telling me is that the charge that you were convicted of is a charge that they no longer are prosecuting people for. So, they’re telling me that they want me to … end your probation today. So, I see that big smile on your face, that’s what I’m going to do.”
Why it matters
If Bowman was a law-abiding citizen legally permitted to carry firearms I’d not be opposed to this reversal. But Bowman is not a law-abiding citizen, and at just 19 years old, these developments have taught him the exact opposite of what he should have learned from his actions.
According to the Washington Post, as a juvenile Bowman was convicted of an armed carjacking, assault, and damage to property. Under federal law, the carjacking (and likely the assault) are offenses that would prohibit Bowman from legally possessing any firearms.
Then, last year at just 18 years old Bowman posted an Instagram video showing him with a mask on his head carrying an AR-15 styled rifle outside a home in DC. The video was similar to many videos and photos young gang members post showing themselves with guns, drugs, and money.
After being arrested and charged in violation of the DC firearms ban, Bowman was initially determined to be a danger to society and denied bond. After sentencing and while serving probation, Bowman was given several conditions of release. Instead of abiding by the release conditions to dutifully report to his probation officer, submit to drug testing, and participate in educational services, Bowman completed none of those requirements. The hearing last week was called by the Judge to address Bowman’s failure to abide by his probationary conditions – then the government made the curios decision to end his probation and lobby for his conviction to be vacated.
It’s unclear why Bowman was not originally charged with being a felon in possession of the rifle – a serious federal charge, especially when the underlying felony was an armed carjacking. It’s also unclear why the current US Attorney’s Office didn’t file new charges against Bowman for being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm – a completely different, but wholly appropriate charge, given Bowman’s criminal history.
The policy change regarding the DC ban has some merit, but the DC US Attorney’s Office must ensure it doesn’t result in outcomes that ignore offenders with violent criminal histories.
The Bowman case appears to be an unforced error, and DC most certainly hasn’t heard the last of Tinsley Bowman.
