Parker Case (Cato 2nd Amendment)

[hoffmang]

All,

There have been new postings of the filings in Parker v. District of Columbia, et al.. This is a case backed by the CATO institute that challenges the District Of Columbia firearms prohibitions as being directly contradictory to the 2nd Amendment.

Here are the filings:
http://www.gurapossessky.com/parker_pleadings.htm

If you are interested you should start with the Brady/VPC/SF Amicus and read up.

Isn't it lovely that the city of San Francisco is wasting tax dollars defending Washington D.C.'s right to have horrible crime in a Federal case...

This one is important as the appeals court seems likely to agree with the Plantif and has basically given them standing. It may become an en-banc precedent change, but either way - this is the likely vehicle case for a Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment.

I'm going to see if I can get them to fix the broken NRA link.

-Gene

[luvtolean]

Fascinating case.

Quite possibly the most important case in the history of jurisprudence related to firearms. Especially for those in states like us with no state constitutional right to bear arms. (as cited in some of the Roterti-Roos challenges)

Brady must be filling their drawers...gotta say, I am a bit too.

[hoffmang]

I've just finished reading all the new filings cover to cover. I am so happy to finally see a fully reasoned and supported 2A case. Just the fact that Miller is fully shown to state that just like Federal Law dating from 1783, the Militia is the entirety of the people. Interestingly there is very little new in the defendants view.

The one interesting thing is this. Do we want to lose the appeal and hope for Cert.? The reason I say that is that if the appeal reverses the District Court and states that there is a fundamental individual right I can see DC not appealing for fear of getting Cert and losing and having it apply nationally.

Anyway - happy thoughts for a later time. All fingers and toes crossed here.

-Gene

[Joe]

^^can you post a quote of the 1783 federal law you are refering to? i cant find it and want to read it.

[hoffmang]

My bad - read too many Amicus Briefs today. Its the Militia Act of 1792.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

I believe it was the ACRU Amicus Brief that spent the most time. The 1792 Act has come all the way through the Union as US Code Title 10, Chapter 13, § 311.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

-Gene

[hoffmang]

All,

I got a follow up from Counsel in Parker. The NRA Amicus brief was filed before the case was stayed in 2005. He intends to get it scanned posted but warns that he has a busy trial week this week.

-Gene

[luvtolean]

Keep the updates coming.

I just had an interesting thought about "milita"...CMP.

"The CMP was created by the U.S. Congress. The original purpose was to provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve the U.S. military. Over the years the emphasis of the program shifted to focus on youth development through marksmanship. From 1916 until 1996 the CMP was administered by the U.S. Army. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (TITLE XVI) created the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice & Firearms Safety, Inc. (CPRPFS) to take over administration and promotion of the CMP. The CPRPFS is a tax exempt not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization that derives its mission from public law. "

[hoffmang]

I just noticed the makeup of the Appellate panel. It is:
Raymond Randolph (Bush I), Karen Henderson (Bush I), and Janice Rogers Brown (Bush II)

-Gene

[hoffmang]

I just got an update on the Appellate panel and I was incorrect before. It is correctly:
Thomas B. Griffith from Utah - a Bush II appointee.
Karen L. Henderson from North and South Carolina - Bush I appointee.
Laurence H. Silberman from all over - Reagan appointee.

That would qualify as good news.

-Gene

[hoffmang]

Sorry to keep replying to myself but I should have added this to my previous post:
Parker v. DC has been scheduled for oral argument on November 13 at 9.30
A.M. EST.

I'll try to see if anyone will be broadcasting. I'm feeling the need for a field trip myself.

-Gene

[Bishop]

Keep us updated, this looks better than most of the stuff I've seen brought lately...