Bill to make Parker vs DC moot

[chiefcrash]

A new gun bill has just been introduced in the House: HR 1399 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1399)

It's not a grabber bill. At least, not overtly. It would instead *repeal* DC's gun ban that was just struck down in the Parker case.

Current bill text says: Congress finds the 2nd amendment protects the rights of individuals, including non-militia. All sorts of good looking stuff in there...

but it's sponsored by a Arkansas Democrat? Hm....

Why? Maybe because if it passes, then not only would it prevent full en banc review of the decision, and appeal to the Supreme Court, but it would probably eliminate the precedential value of the Parker decision, as the Court's decision would in all likelihood be to simply vacate the decision and remand with direction to dismiss.

what do you guys think? sneeky sneeky? or good stuff?

[Pvt. Cowboy]

H. R. 1399 appears to be a duplicate of H. R. 3193 'District of Columbia Personal Protection Act' that was passed in the House in 2004, sponsored by the new bill's co-sponsor Rep. Souder:

H.R. 3193: To restore second amendment rights in the District of Columbia. (2005) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3193:)

The final bill was submitted to the US Senate as such:

District of Columbia Personal Protection Act (Received in Senate from House)[H.R.3193.RDS]
(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:3:./temp/~c108abtpSq::)

You may want to compare the two bills side by side.

[bwiese]

Wow.
I hope these bills don't, if they pass, screw up Parker.
Perhaps we should have these guys pull the bill until next session.

[edwardm]

My first thought is that this won't moot the case on appeal.

Mootness is not an "on/off" switch for the courts, in terms of the justiciability of a case or controversy. The Court will exercise its discretion in determining whether 1) the issue is moot and 2) whether that should kill any and all appeals.

Since the Parker decision would stand, and since DC is the seat of the Federal government, there exist two concerns about arguing for mootness.

First, Parker remains good law and second it remains good law as for those suing the Federal government in DC. So the circuit split stays alive, and it could have some interesting impacts down the road for people suing about things like the Brady Bill or other commerce-related restrictions. The Court would likely prefer to settle this circuit split (assuming the 4+1 votes are there [my money is on the +1 being Souter right now])

The textbook answer is that it would probably moot it, but the Court exercises its own discretion in these matters and has other concerns and controversies (the circuit split) to consider before batting down the writ for cert.

Wow.
I hope these bills don't, if they pass, screw up Parker.
Perhaps we should have these guys pull the bill until next session.

[hoffmang]

All we need to do is make sure that we pressure our legislators to ammend the bill with other firearms friendly changes like national CCW reciprocity or restrictions on cross state border gun sales.

-Gene

[383green]

All we need to do is make sure that we pressure our legislators to ammend the bill with other firearms friendly changes like national CCW reciprocity or restrictions on cross state border gun sales.

-Gene

Gene, you're a GENIUS! That would almost certainly kill the bill this time around (so whether it would make Parker v. DC a moot point would be a moot point), and if it didn't kill the bill, we'd win anyway!

[Mark in Eureka]

All we need to do is load this bill done with all sorts of pro gun admendments. If they want to shut down the apeal process, then let it cost them.

Allow citizens of one state to purchase firearms in any other state that would allow it.

Allow new registration of class three weapons

Formalize recogitions of any states CCW's in all other states.

Take over the total arena of fires legislation from all the states.

Above all make it cost the gun grabbers.

[hoffmang]

It is well within in the power of the federal government to claim under the expansive commerce clause jurisprudence that federal law preempts all state laws on the acquisition of possession of all firearms.

-Gene

[edwardm]

You know, that could work for us, in a strange way. That line of reasoning follows Williamson, Meyer, Roe and Casey - strict scrutiny. Sadly, it cuts both ways and who knows which way until Parker is settled law.

It is well within in the power of the federal government to claim under the expansive commerce clause jurisprudence that federal law preempts all state laws on the acquisition of possession of all firearms.

-Gene

[hoffmang]

I was making a subtly different point. I was more saying that a new law could state that Federal Law preempts all state law that regulates interstate commerce in firearms.

-Gene

[JALLEN]

I'm surprised the states aren't required to grant "full faith and credit" on these CCW licenses, like we do for driver's licenses. No state would argue that it won't recognise another state's drivers license on the ground that the other state only required a 30 hour training course before testing, or 20/40 eyesight, or some similar nonsense.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

It is well within in the power of the federal government to claim under the expansive commerce clause jurisprudence that federal law preempts all state laws on the acquisition of possession of all firearms.

-Gene

The 10th Amendment states....

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This leads me to believe the others, 1 through 9, have a federal connotation to them...wouldn't you agree? States cant trump 1-9.

[Knauga]

I'm surprised the states aren't required to grant "full faith and credit" on these CCW licenses, like we do for driver's licenses. No state would argue that it won't recognise another state's drivers license on the ground that the other state only required a 30 hour training course before testing, or 20/40 eyesight, or some similar nonsense.

Full faith and credit has nothing to do with your drivers license being accepted nationwide. It was a part of the bill to create the interstate highway system.

[Yankee Clipper]

I was making a subtly different point. I was more saying that a new law could state that Federal Law preempts all state law that regulates interstate commerce in firearms.

-Gene
Gene,
Do federal laws, governing interstate commerce, differentiate between firearms and other articles of interstate trade?

[hoffmang]

Yankee,

No, but the way Federal firearms laws are written today is in such a way that they specifically respect state laws.

Freedom: The 10th is even more ignored than the Second... Either way, the 14th certainly gives the Federal government the ability to abridge state laws to add liberty to citizens of the United States.

-Gene

[formerTexan]

Allow citizens of one state to purchase firearms in any other state that would allow it.


In a way, this is already allowed. I was at a Walmart in AZ and saw a sign in the firearms section with the States on it, it was color coded to indicate people from states that can and cannot buy firearms there. Most of the states were "green", like TX, NM, etc. The current law is that a firearm sale, when it is between a person not a resident of the state where the sale is taking place, MUST follow the same laws/procedures as if the sale is taking place it the buyer's home state. This makes it easy if your home state just requires a NICS check and nothing else, and where the state that the buyer is in also participates in NICS or have the same requirement.

Would be nice though to see the '86 "gun owners protection" act repealed though, at least the part about not being able to manufacture machine guns for civilian sales :D Though all those pre-86 transferable machine guns values would drop, it will help a lot more people than it would hurt.

[stag1500]

Would be nice though to see the '86 "gun owners protection" act repealed though, at least the part about not being able to manufacture machine guns for civilian sales :D Though all those pre-86 transferable machine guns values would drop, it will help a lot more people than it would hurt.

I would love to see that happen more than anything. What bothers me the most about the 1986 Machinegun Ban is that it is has created a huge imbalance of power between civilians and the government. The Second Amendment and the Militia Act of 1792 were created to prevent such an imbalance. After all, government is supposed to be subservient to the people, not the other way around.

And of course I would love to see the price of fully automatic weapons come down to a reasonable level.

[anonymous]

Yankee,

No, but the way Federal firearms laws are written today is in such a way that they specifically respect state laws.

Freedom: The 10th is even more ignored than the Second... Either way, the 14th certainly gives the Federal government the ability to abridge state laws to add liberty to citizens of the United States.

-Gene

Actually, the 10th is a pretty fundamental, basic and critical amendment which forms the foundation of federalism. Its used so often its just taken for granted by most people.

Now the 3rd is an ignored amendment! When is the last time we had a debate over quartering troops in private homes?! Wouldn't that be a riot if the Army tried to cut costs by assigning soldiers to board in your house instead of providing base housing.

[hoffmang]

So what Federalism do we have left except for separation of powers?

The 10th was gutted by Gonzales v. Raich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich)

All congress has to do is find some commerce...

-Gene