PDA

View Full Version : Parker en banc review DENIED


1911_sfca
05-08-2007, 10:23 AM
Hi, I received this e-mail this morning:

Good news: DC's petition for rehearing in Parker* has been denied.
Next likely step: DC will petition for Supreme Court review.
--
Robert A. Levy
Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies
Cato Institute
c/o 8787 Bay Colony Drive
Naples, FL 34108



* Since 1976, the ownership of almost all firearms has been illegal in
America's capital city ... In 2003, [Shelly] Parker and five other D.C.
residents filed suit for the right to defend themselves by having
serviceable guns in their homes. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit ruled in their favor in March, saying that "the Second Amendment
protects an individual right to keep and bear arms." Unsuprisingly, the
city's attorneys are appealing the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court,
where a final ruling in Parker v. District of Columbia could have
profound national implications ...

Gun Ownership Becoming a Capital Idea
http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVBorelliGuns90507.html

hoffmang
05-08-2007, 10:28 AM
You beat me to the posting. This is excellent news.

DC has until August 14 to file certatoria. If SCOTUS grants cert that means the case would likely be heard in early 2008 with a decision by July 2008.

-Gene

1911su16b870
05-08-2007, 10:30 AM
Oh Happy Days...on to SCOTUS. :)

AJAX22
05-08-2007, 10:30 AM
what are the odds of the SCOTUS ruling that the 2A is an individual right and possibly overturning any state laws which restrict the right to keep and bear arms?

is there any way this could backfire on us?

JGarrison
05-08-2007, 10:35 AM
What makes everyone think DC will take it to SCOTUS?

Liberty1
05-08-2007, 10:38 AM
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 04-7041 September Term, 2006
03cv00213

Filed On: May 8, 2007 [1039073]

Shelly Parker, et al.,
Appellants
v.
District of Columbia and Adrian Fenty, Mayor of the
District of Columbia,
Appellees

BEFORE: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Sentelle, Henderson, Randolph,*
Rogers,* Tatel,* Garland,* Brown, Griffith, and Kavanaugh,
Circuit Judges

O R D E R
Appellees’ petition for rehearing en banc and the response thereto were
circulated to the full court, and a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the
judges eligible to participate did not vote in favor of the petition. Upon consideration of
the foregoing and appellees’ Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) letter, it is
:D :D ORDERED that the petition be denied:D :D .Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY:
Michael C. McGrail
Deputy Clerk

* Circuit Judges Randolph, Rogers, Tatel, and Garland would grant the petition for
rehearing en banc.

JGarrison
05-08-2007, 10:40 AM
So 4 out of the 10 judges it went to wanted to give it a rehearing?

Liberty1
05-08-2007, 10:45 AM
deleted; as it was incorrect

DrjonesUSA
05-08-2007, 10:49 AM
what are the odds of the SCOTUS ruling that the 2A is an individual right and possibly overturning any state laws which restrict the right to keep and bear arms?

is there any way this could backfire on us?


Well, the most obvious way it could backfire is if the Supremes ruled that the 2A does NOT protect an individual right to bear arms.

However, based on pretty much EVERY article I've read on this case by conservatives and pro-gunners, they are all really excited about the case and think it is a very good case for the SCOTUS to hear.

Thanks to Bush's appointees, it is highly unlikely that the SCOTUS would rule AGAINST the 2A as an individual right.

Nothing is for certain, of course.

bwiese
05-08-2007, 10:55 AM
what are the odds of the SCOTUS ruling that the 2A is an individual right and possibly overturning any state laws which restrict the right to keep and bear arms?

Parker will not nuke all gun laws, fed or state. It's a start, though.

Things that are unobtanium now may be easier to get. I think some fun could be had with Cases which essentially acknowledges that, post-WWII and "special forces" organizations, just about any firearm was suitable for military use.

CA AW bans will likely turn into at least a permitting system, as things like ARs would be among the most 'protected species' of all. Maybe some things like SBRs get easier. Magazine restrictions could be seen falling by the wayside.

Parker likely would not deal with issues like safe storage, transport, insurance, etc. These can all rear their head in the future. (When does 'safe storage' law become ridiculous and a hindrance to reasonable availability of use? All this stuff is for other court cases... the stage has just been set.)

Licensing/registration may (strangely) be intensified, but since Parker makes being armed, in essence, a fundamental right that becomes a moot issue: if just about everyone (i.e., non-felon US citizens) has guns and is in a database of having guns, it's a useless piece of 'noise' data that fades into irrelevance.

The NFA books could open again (as opposed to just pre-May '86), and NFA stuff could - with a fight - be legally acquirable again in CA.

Parker may help with prospective ammunition restrictions/bans too since a gun is useless without ammo. We know the Brady camp is moving from guns to ammo and are calling, internally, ammo control to be the cause of this decade just as AW control was their cause of the 1990s.

If Parker fully flowers, the opposition will of course try other games. Things like transportation restrictions, etc. may not be touched upon at all by Parker. Expect hyperrigorous application of detailed laws to still be the rule of the day.

Matters outside the scope of Parker will still be argued in courts for rest of our prospective lifetimes. Parker just opens the door and acknowledges a fundamental right, with a focus likely just around the home. Free CCWs will not rain down from the sky, although regional variations discretional variations may become causeworthy.

PanzerAce
05-08-2007, 10:57 AM
w00t!

bwiese
05-08-2007, 11:05 AM
Well, the most obvious way it could backfire is if the Supremes ruled that the 2A does NOT protect an individual right to bear arms.

Yes. Five years ago, that would have been a rational worry and the political seers at the NRA would be worrying about that. Parker went ahead without perhaps considering that we have a Supreme Court, not the Supreme Court - it changes over time, has moods, pique, etc. So Parker did land at the right time - esp as more scholarship has emerged.

based on pretty much EVERY article I've read on this case by conservatives and pro-gunners, they are all really excited about the case and think it is a very good case for the SCOTUS to hear.

Never mistake that conservatives are not necessarily progunners. Sometimes "conservatism" = "statism".

One of the 3 judges in Parker (Karen Henderson?? forget her name) voted against it, and she is generally noted for a fairly conservative ideology.


Thanks to Bush's appointees, it is highly unlikely that the SCOTUS would rule AGAINST the 2A as an individual right.

Yep. GWB+this Congress may turn out, de facto, as being the most pro-gun combo ever, due to actions:

- appointing Roberts & Alito to the Supremes;
- signing Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act;
- not renewing Federal AWB.

Liberty1
05-08-2007, 11:26 AM
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/05/circuit_denies.html

Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Circuit denies new review of Second Amendment
Posted by Lyle Denniston at 12:31 PM

In a brief order that clears the way for a potentially major dispute in the Supreme Court over the meaning of the Second Amendment, the D.C. Circuit Court on Tuesday refused to rehear en banc a test case on the validity of a sweeping gun control law in the District of Columbia. The denial was by a vote of 6 to 4. Among the dissenters were both conservative and liberal members of the Court. Here is the Court's order.

The District government had sought reconsideration following a Circuit panel's 2-1 ruling on March 9 that held the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a handgun in one's own home. (The rehearing petition is discussed and linked in this post ) The denial of rehearing leaves that decision intact.

Because local government officials regard their power to regulate guns in the capital city as a "life or death" matter, they are expected to challenge the panel decision in the Supreme Court. Such an appeal almost certainly would not be reviewed until next Term. (D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty is expected to make a statement later Tuesday.)

A grant would appear to be quite likely, because there is a definite conflict among the Circuit Courts on the meaning of the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue since a somewhat ambiguous decision in 1939 (U.S. v. Miller0 .In fact, Justice Clarence Thomas in 1997 suggested that the Court some day should re-think the issue, and he indicated he was sympathetic to the individual right argument.

While the Fifth Circuit Court has ruled in favor of an individual right theory, it did not use that theory to strike down any specific gun control law. By contrast, the D.C. Circuit ruling was the first to apply that theory directly in nullifying a gun law. Every other Circuit Court to rule on the issue has rejected the indiviual right theory, largely based upon the Supreme Court's Miller decision. There is also a 10 to 7 split among state appellate courts on the issue.

Moreover, there is also a direct conflict over the Second Amendment as it applies specifically to the D.C. gun law -- the city's highest local court, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, has upheld the same law by embracing the collective right theory. It reiterated that position as recently as last week, in the case of Andrews v. United States (D.C. Court of Appeals docket 02-1043) -- a ruling that the city government had brought to the Circuit Court's attention last Friday, before rehearing was denied.

The Bush Administration has publicly said it favors the individual right interpretation of the Amendment, but it has never found that the Amendment so interpreted would strike down any federal gun law. If the D.C. case goes on to the Court, the Administration would be quite likely to take a position on it; it was not involved in the case in the Circuit Court or the District Court.

In unsuccessfully calling for rehearing in the D.C. Circuit, the local government had said that, if the ruling stood, "the federal courts in this jurisdiction may expect to be singularly attractive to suits against the United States Attorney General challenging nationally applicable firearm laws Congress has enacted or may yet enact."

Because the case of Parker v. District of Columbia deals only with the Second Amendment as a federal issue, it does not raise the question of whether the Second Amendment applies at all to state and local government. The Supreme Court last faced that issue in 1886 in Presser v. Illinois, finding that the Amendment only applied to the federal government. That would not be an issue in the Parker case in the Supreme Court, but a state or local case would be almost certain to arise to test it.

(As a reader points out, below, Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, who dissented from the panel decision, did not vote for en banc review. The dissenters were a conservative, A. Raymond Randolph, and three liberal or moderate judges, Merrick Garland, Judith Rogers and David Tatel. Had Henderson voted with them, the Court would have been split 5-5 but review would still be denied, because a majority is required.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments
How strange that Judge Henderson, who dissented from the panel opinion, didn't vote to grant rehearing. It wouldn't have changed the outcome, but it would have made the vote 5-5.

Posted by: madisonian at May 8, 2007 01:26 PM

E Pluribus Unum
05-08-2007, 11:27 AM
Yes. Five years ago, that would have been a rational worry and the political seers at the NRA would be worrying about that. Parker went ahead without perhaps considering that we have a Supreme Court, not the Supreme Court - it changes over time, has moods, pique, etc. So Parker did land at the right time - esp as more scholarship has emerged.

Maybe that is a fact that would cause them NOT to appeal Parker; knowing that their chances are less; they may choose to wait for a more favorable panel.

Scarecrow Repair
05-08-2007, 11:28 AM
DC has until August 14 to file certatoria. If SCOTUS grants cert

And what if they don't? Would it stand as precedent in all 50 states, or just DC, or just Federal territory (Guam, parks?!?)?

E Pluribus Unum
05-08-2007, 11:33 AM
And what if they don't? Would it stand as precedent in all 50 states, or just DC, or just Federal territory (Guam, parks?!?)?

It would only be binding in DC.... which is why the SOCUS would probably hear the case... there is a circuit split.

CSDGuy
05-08-2007, 11:42 AM
It would only be binding in DC.... which is why the SOCUS would probably hear the case... there is a circuit split.

It would be binding in the territory covering the US Court of Appeals 4th District, not just DC. DC itself is NOT it's own appeals court, though it has it's own federal court circut within the 4th District.

tgriffin
05-08-2007, 11:58 AM
Nice! Ive been waiting to hear this news. We all know how huge this. Great things to come in the next few years gentlemen.

mblat
05-08-2007, 12:01 PM
Never mistake that conservatives are not necessarily progunners. Sometimes "conservatism" = "statism".


Not only that..... It is also that there is small, but very vocal and very respected group of decidedly liberal scholars who now strongly advocate individual right concept.
There was an article in NY Times on this subject.

hoffmang
05-08-2007, 4:26 PM
If DC chose not to appeal, it would however mean that all Federal laws on firearms can be challenged in the DC Circuit court as that is the seat of the Federal Government. DC is a bit unique in that respect.

-Gene

just4fun63
05-08-2007, 4:27 PM
"One of the 3 judges in Parker (Karen Henderson?? forget her name) voted against it, and she is generally noted for a fairly conservative ideology." (bwise)

I think I read that her argument was more of a " DC is different " argument not a guns are bad argument. It's been a few weeks since I tried to read her argument and don't fully remember its wording. Please correct me if I am misquoting this.

aileron
05-08-2007, 4:33 PM
:D :cool:

Good news... been waiting for this one. Big smiles. On to SCOTUS.

FreedomIsNotFree
05-08-2007, 4:49 PM
Maybe that is a fact that would cause them NOT to appeal Parker; knowing that their chances are less; they may choose to wait for a more favorable panel.

I dont think the political climate will allow any, so called, politician that claims to be "tough on guns", to wait for a "better" Supreme Court.

The mayor of DC as well as other local politicians have already stated they will take this all the way to the SC if necessary. If they dont push this case all the way they can no longer claim to be tough on guns.

spgk380
05-08-2007, 6:53 PM
I dont think the political climate will allow any, so called, politician that claims to be "tough on guns", to wait for a "better" Supreme Court.

The mayor of DC as well as other local politicians have already stated they will take this all the way to the SC if necessary. If they dont push this case all the way they can no longer claim to be tough on guns.

Plus, either they start allowing handguns or they file something with the SCOTUS, look like they are tough on crime, and probably are allowed to continue banning them until the SCOTUS decides...

Also, given the current makeup of the court, if THIS court rules that the 2A is not an individual right...well...no court ever will, and then maybe we are all wrong???

383green
05-08-2007, 9:03 PM
if THIS court rules that the 2A is not an individual right...well...no court ever will, and then maybe we are all wrong???


We are right in either case. The only question is whether or not our government acknowledges that.

trfcrugby
05-08-2007, 9:29 PM
CA AW bans will likely turn into at least a permitting system, as things like ARs would be among the most 'protected species' of all.

Sorry if this has been asked before, but what does this mean, most protected species?

ghostwong
05-08-2007, 9:38 PM
Woooooooooooo Hoooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Liberty1
05-08-2007, 9:39 PM
Sorry if this has been asked before, but what does this mean, most protected species?

It refers to the M-16/AR style of arms. Since it is the current military rifle, private ownership of that arm would qualify, per the "Miller" discission, as contributing to "the common defense" purpose of a "well regulated Militia", and thus make it, the AR/M-16 a 2nd Amendment "protected species".

E Pluribus Unum
05-08-2007, 10:20 PM
Sorry if this has been asked before, but what does this mean, most protected species?

The DC decision is enforceable in that district, but not anywhere else. If it goes to the SOCTUS and they agree with the DC decision then it would be enforceable in the entire country.


Let us assume that that SCOTUS rules in our favor:
The DC decision basically says that each citizen is GUARANTEED the right to own any weapon that would normally be carried by infantry. Because nuclear weapons are not carried by infantry, they are not protected under the second amendment; they can be restricted.

The reason this would protect the AR family is because how can a lawmaker argue that an AR-15 is not an infantry weapon if its carried by our troops? If a SCOTUS ruling ruled in favor of us, SB-23- California's ban on assault weapons would be unenforceable with regards to AR-15s because our infantry carries them. It might still be enforceable with say.... an MP5 because that is not a standard infantry weapon. The California courts would be free to interpret the SCOTUS decision very strictly and say that if it is not carried by the US Military infantry, it can be restricted or banned.

What this means is that interpreted super narrowly, we would have a right to own and carry any weapon currently issued to infantry soldiers; all others could be theoretically banned. You could own an AR15, M14, M9 but they could outlaw your .22 rim fire and your crossbow because they are not standard infantry-grade weapons.

What I am interested in is if this decision is concurred by the SCOTUS then and any law restricting infantry-level weapons is unconstitutional then many existing laws become unconstitutional and are automatically thrown out. This includes the 1986 law forbidding full automatic machine guns. In effect it could open the door to private citizens owning a select fire M4, just like the infantry carries.

DrjonesUSA
05-08-2007, 10:24 PM
Never mistake that conservatives are not necessarily progunners. Sometimes "conservatism" = "statism".

One of the 3 judges in Parker (Karen Henderson?? forget her name) voted against it, and she is generally noted for a fairly conservative ideology.




Yep, that's why I made the distinction between "conservatives" and "pro-gunners" - I fully realize that they are not always one in the same. ;)

383green
05-08-2007, 10:27 PM
how can a lawmaker argue that an AR-15 is not an infantry weapon if its carried by our troops?

Our troops don't carry the AR-15; they carry the M-16. So, I figure that a select-fire M-16 or M-4 carbine would be "the most protected species of all," while the AR-15 would get lumped in with the .22 rimfires. Hopefully we could get an exemption by drilling that extra hole, though... ;)

jdberger
05-08-2007, 10:30 PM
Hmmmm.......I wonder what ammo costs are for the M-203...?

:D :D :D

Pont
05-08-2007, 11:22 PM
Worst case scenario: SCOTUS firmly declares that the 2nd is a collective right, not an individual one. Inspired, the gun banners start a new round of anti-gun legislation.

That is essentially the status quo now, with the gun banners a little more happy. They'll be happy just long enough to realize that gun-banning doesn't win them any votes they didn't have already as they sit shellshocked, wondering how they managed to lose control of congress again (here's hoping for a 45%/45%/10% split :) )

Most likely scenario: SCOTUS shows it lacks a spine and rules one way or another on as minute a technicality as possible in order to avoid setting any meaningful precedent.

E Pluribus Unum
05-08-2007, 11:24 PM
Hmmmm.......I wonder what ammo costs are for the M-203...?

:D :D :D

Direct intepretation of the 2nd would allow you to have an M-203, but not the round.

We could own practice grenades but thats it. Infantry is not issued live grenades until they are called into service. It could be argued that anyone in the unorganised militia could own the launcher but live ammunition for that launcher could be restricted.

E Pluribus Unum
05-09-2007, 12:31 AM
The problem is, that the DC circuit would probably refuse to hear anything until SCOTUS either denies review or upholds the circuit reversal, or if DC does not file.

We want this to be heard by SCOTUS so it offers us something on the state level.

You say I am wrong... and then offer evidense to show that I am right....


Until SCOTUS denies cert or makes a ruling there is basically no impact. On a federal level there may technically be some ground gained it does little for us. We need it to take aim at the state laws which are much worse than the federal laws.

xenophobe
05-09-2007, 12:32 AM
The DC decision is enforceable in that district, but not anywhere else. If it goes to the SOCTUS and they agree with the DC decision then it would be enforceable in the entire country.

Umm... you're wrong. Right now Parker holds precedent over the federal government. Now that en banc has been denied, a door has just opened. Right now federal laws and regulations that ban importation of specific firearms, as well as Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986, GCA'68 and other laws may be directly challenged on the basis that it violates 2nd Amendment protection as long as there is a party with standing. RIGHT NOW. SCOTUS is not necessary. The DC Court of Appeals is the only circuit that has this authority.

The problem is, that the DC circuit would probably refuse to hear anything until SCOTUS either denies review or upholds the circuit reversal, or if DC does not file. Unless SCOTUS disagrees with the DC Circuit's reversal, a major victory has already been won.

We want this to be heard by SCOTUS so it offers us something on the state level.

xenophobe
05-09-2007, 12:33 AM
You say I am wrong... and then offer evidense to show that I am right....


Until SCOTUS denies cert or makes a ruling there is basically no impact. On a federal level there may technically be some ground gained it does little for us. We need it to take aim at the state laws which are much worse than the federal laws.

You said that the ruling only affects the DC circuit. In that you are wrong. On the Federal level, the NFA, GCA'68 and Firearm Owner's Protection act, as well as the Assault Weapons Import Ban can be challenged directly on the basis of being unconstitutional.

You call that little or nothing? :rolleyes:

E Pluribus Unum
05-09-2007, 12:37 AM
You said that the ruling only affects the DC circuit. In that you are wrong. On the Federal level, the NFA, GCA'68 and Firearm Owner's Protection act, as well as the Assault Weapons Import Ban can be challenged directly on the basis of being unconstitutional.

You call that little or nothing? :rolleyes:

I call that little because as of now, the DC Circuit will wait either for cert to be denied or a ruling. In that... little has been accomplished until that happens.


P.S.
Look at the posts... for some reason the server got our posts backwards... your reponse comes BEFORE my post.

hoffmang
05-09-2007, 12:55 AM
EPU, Xeno is probably more correct on this one. If I wanted to, I could have Gura file an action to strike NFA in court in DC as the 2nd Amendment is an individual right in the DC court. Since its the seat of the Federal Government, I have standing to sue there. If the Federal Government loses in DC, it loses everywhere.

No District Court judge has the ability to stay new cases until Cert is granted (or not) by SCOTUS mainly because there is no legal certainty that Cert will be granted. Practically, we all expect Cert to be granted - but that isn't grounds for a stay.

Owning and carrying an unregistered select fire SBR M4 is probably legal on Pennsylvania Avenue right now.

-Gene

E Pluribus Unum
05-09-2007, 1:05 AM
EPU, Xeno is probably more correct on this one. If I wanted to, I could have Gura file an action to strike NFA in court in DC as the 2nd Amendment is an individual right in the DC court. Since its the seat of the Federal Government, I have standing to sue there. If the Federal Government loses in DC, it loses everywhere.

No District Court judge has the ability to stay new cases until Cert is granted (or not) by SCOTUS mainly because there is no legal certainty that Cert will be granted. Practically, we all expect Cert to be granted - but that isn't grounds for a stay.

Owning and carrying an unregistered select fire SBR M4 is probably legal on Pennsylvania Avenue right now.

-Gene

Then I stand corrected..... As I understood it... I saw little improvement.

I would modify my statement to say that while this might benefit other people in free states that are limited only by federal law... people in occupied areas like California whose state laws neuter far more than the federal laws see little to gain until the SCOTUS hears the case and rules for us. Is this a true assessment or is my pessimism unwarranted?

hoffmang
05-09-2007, 1:09 AM
It is generally true, but there are some interesting edges. If NFA becomes "shall issue" it could interact with state laws in interesting ways. Also, some of the "must comply with buyer's State laws" stuff could be targeted which would change the nature of the "safe" handgun list. Much of state law relies on Federal underpinnings.

-Gene

xenophobe
05-09-2007, 1:23 AM
I call that little because as of now, the DC Circuit will wait either for cert to be denied or a ruling. In that... little has been accomplished until that happens.

Unless SCOTUS disagrees with the DC reversal, precedent has already been set in regards to our 2nd Amendment rights. That already means NO FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN will be ever be upheld, and in case such a bill was passed, an injunction would most certainly be given when before it would have been denied. Major win with profound long-term implications here.

In any event, Parker V DC is a federal rights issue and not a state's rights issue, and we need a SCOTUS ruling for it to be directly applicable as a basis to fight for state's rights.

If the anti-gunners don't push this case to SCOTUS, any further attempts at control on the national level will be lost completely. In other words, they have no choice, not fighting it is losing big time. The damage has already been done, and this is why they will support fighting the Parker reversal with everything they've got.

Expect DC to hire some really expensive big guns for a SCOTUS hearing.

E Pluribus Unum
05-09-2007, 1:30 AM
Expect DC to hire some really expensive big guns for a SCOTUS hearing.

Are we eaqually matched?

xenophobe
05-09-2007, 1:41 AM
Are we eaqually matched?

http://www.cato.org/

Umm... Yeah. Without a doubt.

Centurion_D
05-09-2007, 10:49 AM
How many of you think the folks pushing to uphold the D.C. gun ban might NOT want this to go to SCOTUS? You think they might be a little scared knowing this whole thing could blow up in their face and have exactly the opposite effect of what they are trying to do? What do you guy's think?

bwiese
05-09-2007, 11:41 AM
How many of you think the folks pushing to uphold the D.C. gun ban might NOT want this to go to SCOTUS? You think they might be a little scared knowing this whole thing could blow up in their face and have exactly the opposite effect of what they are trying to do? What do you guy's think?

They have to, they're cornered. Their party constituencies won't let them not fight it.

And if they lose, they get off easy and move onto the next big gov/liberal topic because they can just blame the courts.

E Pluribus Unum
05-09-2007, 11:43 AM
They have to, they're cornered. Their party constituencies won't let them not fight it.

And if they lose, they get off easy and move onto the next big gov/liberal topic because they can just blame the courts.

Thats sad.... a complete waste of their tax monies.

Bishop
05-09-2007, 11:54 AM
I'm guardedly excited!

I'm sure we're in great hands, but everyone still cross your fingers! :D

Exciting times!

hoffmang
05-09-2007, 1:51 PM
Also, all of the best legal folks on the pro-gun side are helping (with maybe on exception, but his work is being relied upon also.) Take a look at the friends of the court filings:
http://www.gurapossessky.com/parker_pleadings.htm

-Gene

spgk380
05-09-2007, 1:56 PM
They have to, they're cornered. Their party constituencies won't let them not fight it.

And if they lose, they get off easy and move onto the next big gov/liberal topic because they can just blame the courts.

And besides, if you believe them, the alternative is that all of Washington D.C. is going to explode into one huge Iraqi style gun battle, so what do they have to loose by appealing such an "intolerable" decision. I mean, as far as they are concerned, its either appeal or their world will end. Heck, they could be right....but if so, that says a lot more about D.C. than it does guns. People in the rest of the nation seem to be more or less capable of possessing guns with few problems.

guns_and_labs
05-09-2007, 2:07 PM
Owning and carrying an unregistered select fire SBR M4 is probably legal on Pennsylvania Avenue right now.

-Gene

Do let us know when you're going to test this theory, please. :)

xenophobe
05-09-2007, 3:31 PM
How many of you think the folks pushing to uphold the D.C. gun ban might NOT want this to go to SCOTUS?

They don't want it to go to SCOTUS. They have no choice though. DC Circuit precedent has been set and only SCOTUS can reverse it.

As of right now, a Federal Assault Weapon Ban is nearly impossible to stick, even if Congress passes it and the President signs it. And, many of the laws in the USC may very well be challenged as a violation of 2nd Amendment rights now. The court has already spoken for the federal government. SCOTUS will only strike or validate it for the rest of the circuits.

Anti-gun activism on the federal level has been crippled, and the only possible way to restore it is for the antis is to hope SCOTUS agrees with them.



You think they might be a little scared knowing this whole thing could blow up in their face and have exactly the opposite effect of what they are trying to do?

Unlikely. The DC Circuit ruling was excellent. If there wasn't a circuit split, SCOTUS would most likely let it stand without hearing it, which would mean end-of-story, we won.

E Pluribus Unum
05-09-2007, 3:52 PM
Owning and carrying an unregistered select fire SBR M4 is probably legal on Pennsylvania Avenue right now.

From what you are saying... DC is already enforceable on the federal level. Does this mean that owning an unregistered select fire SBR M4 is probably legal in NV and other free states as well?

This would also make the $200 federal stamp unconstitutional as one cannot be charged a fee to exercise a right.

xenophobe
05-09-2007, 3:55 PM
From what you are saying... DC is already enforceable on the federal level. Does this mean that owning an unregistered select fire SBR M4 is probably legal in NV and other free states as well?

No, it doesn't make it legal. You may have grounds to challenge the law now if you were arrested for one though, in a similar manner to Miller v. US.


This would also make the $200 federal stamp unconstitutional as one cannot be charged a fee to exercise a right.

The $200 tax would probably be found to be constitutional, as the DC Circuit even said that some restrictions may be legal, but that question was not asked of them so they specifically did not go into it.

E Pluribus Unum
05-09-2007, 4:01 PM
No, it doesn't make it legal. You may have grounds to challenge the law now if you were arrested for one though, in a similar manner to Miller v. US.

I realize that... but for all intents and purposes, carrying said firearm on Penn. Ave in DC would be the same as carrying it in Nevada or other state that does not have laws on the state level.

schizrade2
05-09-2007, 4:18 PM
Parker will not nuke all gun laws, fed or state. It's a start, though.

Things that are unobtanium now may be easier to get. I think some fun could be had with Cases which essentially acknowledges that, post-WWII and "special forces" organizations, just about any firearm was suitable for military use.

CA AW bans will likely turn into at least a permitting system, as things like ARs would be among the most 'protected species' of all. Maybe some things like SBRs get easier. Magazine restrictions could be seen falling by the wayside.

Parker likely would not deal with issues like safe storage, transport, insurance, etc. These can all rear their head in the future. (When does 'safe storage' law become ridiculous and a hindrance to reasonable availability of use? All this stuff is for other court cases... the stage has just been set.)

Licensing/registration may (strangely) be intensified, but since Parker makes being armed, in essence, a fundamental right that becomes a moot issue: if just about everyone (i.e., non-felon US citizens) has guns and is in a database of having guns, it's a useless piece of 'noise' data that fades into irrelevance.

The NFA books could open again (as opposed to just pre-May '86), and NFA stuff could - with a fight - be legally acquirable again in CA.

Parker may help with prospective ammunition restrictions/bans too since a gun is useless without ammo. We know the Brady camp is moving from guns to ammo and are calling, internally, ammo control to be the cause of this decade just as AW control was their cause of the 1990s.

If Parker fully flowers, the opposition will of course try other games. Things like transportation restrictions, etc. may not be touched upon at all by Parker. Expect hyperrigorous application of detailed laws to still be the rule of the day.

Matters outside the scope of Parker will still be argued in courts for rest of our prospective lifetimes. Parker just opens the door and acknowledges a fundamental right, with a focus likely just around the home. Free CCWs will not rain down from the sky, although regional variations discretional variations may become causeworthy.

I love you Bweise ;)

Ford8N
05-09-2007, 4:48 PM
No, it doesn't make it legal. You may have grounds to challenge the law now if you were arrested for one though, in a similar manner to Miller v. US.



The $200 tax would probably be found to be constitutional, as the DC Circuit even said that some restrictions may be legal, but that question was not asked of them so they specifically did not go into it.


Sadly, Miller and Layton were a couple of criminals. I would support throwing the book at any criminal carrying a full auto M4 down Pennsylvania Ave.

whomper
05-09-2007, 4:58 PM
So this means HR 1022 cannot be passed?
I'm curious to see how it all pans out.

hoffmang
05-09-2007, 5:00 PM
EPU,

Pennsylvania Ave is a bit different than Nevada right now. The law in Nevada is that there is no Second Amendment so sayeth Silviera. The law in DC is that the Second Amendment is real but of uncertain scope. I stretch a touch when I say an untaxed SBR on Pennsylvania Avenue is legal. Its against the law, but its now quite likely to be an unconstitutional law in Pennsylvania.

If a Nevadan chose to sue in DC however, he could. If he won, then parts of NFA would be struck across the US.

Do the jurisdiction distinctions make sense now?

-Gene

383green
05-09-2007, 5:04 PM
If a Nevadan chose to sue in DC however, he could. If he won, then parts of NFA would be struck across the US.


Do you think that anybody outside DC (whether in NV or not) might try this before it is determined whether Parker will be heard by SCOTUS or not?

SemiAutoSam
05-09-2007, 5:05 PM
Gene
I'm a sometimes resident of Nevada about 10% of the year and have a few NFA toys that are Registered to me Remember that RDIAS you wanted :D

Does this give me standing ?
I'm sure you always wanted to practice before the Supremes.

EPU,

Pennsylvania Ave is a bit different than Nevada right now. The law in Nevada is that there is no Second Amendment so sayeth Silviera. The law in DC is that the Second Amendment is real but of uncertain scope. I stretch a touch when I say an untaxed SBR on Pennsylvania Avenue is legal. Its against the law, but its now quite likely to be an unconstitutional law in Pennsylvania.

If a Nevadan chose to sue in DC however, he could. If he won, then parts of NFA would be struck across the US.

Do the jurisdiction distinctions make sense now?

-Gene

E Pluribus Unum
05-09-2007, 8:41 PM
Gene
I'm a sometimes resident of Nevada about 10% of the year and have a few NFA toys that are Registered to me Remember that RDIAS you wanted :D

Does this give me standing ?
I'm sure you always wanted to practice before the Supremes.

As I understand it... if you are only a resident of Nv for 10% of the time... you are not actually a resident. You are a California resident temporarily in Nv. You would not be eligable to buy NFA items legally.

hoffmang
05-09-2007, 9:02 PM
EPU,

Federal law on residency as it pertains to firearms is not that strict. When Sam is in Nevada, he's a NV resident - especially if he owns property.

Anyway - its not yet time to go testing anything. Either DC files for a grant of certatoria from SCOTUS by August 14, or then it becomes time...

-Gene

SemiAutoSam
05-09-2007, 9:03 PM
I purchased the NFA Items when I was a 100% Based in Nevada. NFA items stay in Nevada.

As I understand it... if you are only a resident of Nv for 10% of the time... you are not actually a resident. You are a California resident temporarily in Nv. You would not be eligible to buy NFA items legally.

E Pluribus Unum
05-09-2007, 9:10 PM
EPU,

Federal law on residency as it pertains to firearms is not that strict. When Sam is in Nevada, he's a NV resident - especially if he owns property.


Obviously someone on a weekend vacation in Vegas does not qualify as a "Nevada Resident".... where is the cutoff?

hoffmang
05-09-2007, 9:53 PM
Here is what BATFE has to say:

(B12) May a person (who is not an alien) who resides in one State and owns property in another State purchase a handgun in either State? [Back]

If a person maintains a home in 2 States and resides in both States for certain periods of the year, he or she may, during the period of time the person actually resides in a particular State, purchase a handgun in that State. However, simply owning property in another State does not qualify the person to purchase a handgun in that State.

[27 CFR 478.11]

-Gene

E Pluribus Unum
05-09-2007, 10:02 PM
Here is what BATFE has to say:


-Gene

What about someone who does not own property in either state???

Or owns a house in California but rents a place in Az???

It says that just because someone owns property there does not make him a resident. So then the fact that he does not own property there should not matter.

It is basically saying that a person is a resident when he says he lives there.

hoffmang
05-09-2007, 11:13 PM
If you go check out the ATF FAQ you will find that those in out of state colleges are considered residents of both states. It looks like the common sense rule would be the common sense rule. Stay in a hotel in Vegas for a week - not likely a Nevada resident. Rent a condo for a month and you're probably a Nevada resident for that month.

-Gene

E Pluribus Unum
05-09-2007, 11:23 PM
If you go check out the ATF FAQ you will find that those in out of state colleges are considered residents of both states. It looks like the common sense rule would be the common sense rule. Stay in a hotel in Vegas for a week - not likely a Nevada resident. Rent a condo for a month and you're probably a Nevada resident for that month.

-Gene

I would concurr.... :)

jdberger
05-09-2007, 11:30 PM
Direct intepretation of the 2nd would allow you to have an M-203, but not the round.

We could own practice grenades but thats it. Infantry is not issued live grenades until they are called into service. It could be argued that anyone in the unorganised militia could own the launcher but live ammunition for that launcher could be restricted.

That's the most ridiculous thing that I've heard.

So if you aren't "issued" an item, and I'm assuming that "issued" means that you carry it around all day or store it in barracks, it doesn't qualify?

Before you respond, think about it for a second.
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
OK, did you have your rifle with you all the time, or was it held in the armory until you needed it? Did you always have live ammo laying around, or were you issued it when you went to the range? How about a pistol? Always had it or checked it out of the armory?

EPU, you have some salient arguments and comments. This one doesn't pass the smell test.

E Pluribus Unum
05-09-2007, 11:38 PM
That's the most ridiculous thing that I've heard.

So if you aren't "issued" an item, and I'm assuming that "issued" means that you carry it around all day or store it in barracks, it doesn't qualify?

Before you respond, think about it for a second.
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
OK, did you have your rifle with you all the time, or was it held in the armory until you needed it? Did you always have live ammo laying around, or were you issued it when you went to the range? How about a pistol? Always had it or checked it out of the armory?

EPU, you have some salient arguments and comments. This one doesn't pass the smell test.

No... but how many times were you issued a M203 live grenade for "practice"??? They give you practice grenades... They only time live HE (or other) grenades are issued is on deployment.

I am not saying I AGREE with it... what I am saying is that I could see them ruling that way.

anotherone
05-09-2007, 11:40 PM
Maybe this wasn't worded right for me or I was unclear: but if the Supreme Court denies cert and does not hear an appeal for Parker vs. DC will this have the same effect as if they heard the case and upheld the decision? I'm stumped here.

CSDGuy
05-09-2007, 11:45 PM
Maybe this wasn't worded right for me or I was unclear: but if the Supreme Court denies cert and does not hear an appeal for Parker vs. DC will this have the same effect as if they heard the case and upheld the decision? I'm stumped here.

No. That would mean that the 4th Circut Court of Appeals decision stands and is binding only within that Circut. In effect, the SCOTUS would NOT have heard the case, and would have decided not to.

E Pluribus Unum
05-09-2007, 11:46 PM
Maybe this wasn't worded right for me or I was unclear: but if the Supreme Court denies cert and does not hear an appeal for Parker vs. DC will this have the same effect as if they heard the case and upheld the decision? I'm stumped here.

Nope.... I am just a NetTard... but as I understand it:


As it sits its enforceable on the FEDERAL level but not on the state level.

Silveria vs. Lockyer is the case that is binding to CALIFORNIA law... and THAT case says the opposite of the DC case... that the second amendment does NOT apply to you and I.

The only way for that to be undone is for the SCOTUS to hear Parker vs. DC and to rule FOR us.



If however they hear Parker Vs. DC and rule AGAINST us... then Parker Vs. DC goes away and the Federal laws stick.


As it sits now.... we have something to gain in California if Parker Vs. DC is heard and we win....... if however Parker vs. DC is heard and we LOSE.... then everything goes back to the way it was before parker and we lose ground.

So... with parker, we gained ground on the FEDERAL level only... by Parker going to the supreme court, we risk losing the ground we gained with FEDERAL laws... but stand to gain with state laws if we win.

jdberger
05-09-2007, 11:56 PM
No... but how many times were you issued a M203 live grenade for "practice"??? They give you practice grenades... They only time live HE (or other) grenades are issued is on deployment.

I am not saying I AGREE with it... what I am saying is that I could see them ruling that way.

Agreed. But that is for training.

The way I understand it, 2A applies to infantry kit, and among that kit you could be expected to carry live ammo. Those little blue grenades are nothing more than ballistically handicapped shotgun slugs.

Personally, I was never issued a M203 grenades. I was Armored Cav (why walk to war when you can ride and cook a chicken under the back deck at the same time?) But they did allow us to shoot the APFSDS occasionally out of the 120mm. Uncle Sam also let us shoot APIT from the 50s, too.

CSDGuy
05-10-2007, 12:01 AM
If Parker is heard by SCOTUS and "we" lose... we haven't gained anything. However, if it is heard and "we" win OR SCOTUS denies cert, then "we" gain ground. The immediate effects would be quite limited though.

Parker basically only deals with Federal law. However, remember where the term "Terry Stop" came from... the constitutional issues in Terry have been applied to all states, not just the state or Federal Circut that it was heard in...

anotherone
05-10-2007, 12:20 AM
Given that the case was already denied an en banc hearing I don't see how it could catch the attention of the SCOTUS. True, it's high profile but the SCOTUS has a long standing history of avoiding 2nd Amendment cases. It would certainly be interesting if the case was heard though.

Despite the desires of various constituants though, I highly doubt that the Brady Bunch, VPC, and other deep pockets are willing to risk the current line-up in the Supreme Court. I doubt we'll even see this thing appealed now that the en banc review was denied. They just can't be THAT dumb.

E Pluribus Unum
05-10-2007, 12:29 AM
Given that the case was already denied an en banc hearing I don't see how it could catch the attention of the SCOTUS. True, it's high profile but the SCOTUS has a long standing history of avoiding 2nd Amendment cases. It would certainly be interesting if the case was heard though.

Because there is a split amoungst circuits.... so far DC and Louisiana say that 2ns amendment applies to individuals.... California says that it is a collective right... they disagree... its up to the SCOTUS to settle it.

hoffmang
05-10-2007, 10:51 AM
Let me try some clarification.

First, this ruling is in the DC Circuit, not the Fourth Circuit.

Parker only deals with the applicability of the 2A to the Federal Government. It does not explore the question of whether the 2A applies to the states.

The DC Circuit court is unique. All who have a grievance with the US Government can bring suit against the government there and have standing since it is the home office of the Government if you will. The difference between DC and the Fifth Circuit (TX, LA) is that those of us who live in the Ninth Circuit can't sue the Federal government in Texas, but we can sue them in the DC Circuit.

However, here in the 9th Circuit Silviera means that we can't, in the Ninth Circuit, make a 2A claim against state or federal law until SCOTUS rules for Parker in our favor - making it binding precedent on all the Circuits and not just DC and the Fifth. Should SCOTUS rule in our favor, then all federal laws will be challengeable in all circuits including the Ninth. However, there is still a case that needs to be won to be able to undermine the ruling in Silviera that even if the 2A is an individual right it doesn't bind the states.

-Gene

xenophobe
05-10-2007, 11:22 AM
So if you aren't "issued" an item, and I'm assuming that "issued" means that you carry it around all day or store it in barracks, it doesn't qualify?

OK, did you have your rifle with you all the time, or was it held in the armory until you needed it? Did you always have live ammo laying around, or were you issued it when you went to the range? How about a pistol? Always had it or checked it out of the armory?

Sorry I have to disagree. Being issued or not, or being a personal item or armory stored item has no bearing for 2nd Amendment protection.

As well, being a grenade launcher or not has nothing to do with it. It is an individual use firearm. M203 should fall under 2nd Amendment protection, IMO.

hoffmang
05-10-2007, 4:09 PM
The chief judge does not decide which cases they will hear. This is an accurate summary of how the process works:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stat es#Selection_of_cases

SCOTUS is likely to grant Cert because there is a split between DC and the 5th on one hand and all but one of the other circuits on the other.

-Gene

tgriffin
05-10-2007, 5:04 PM
Good read Gene.

What does everyone think about the chances that Parker will get a plurality oppinion or very much worse, is 'dismissed as improvidently granted' (cert'ed but then denied after brief review)?

hoffmang
05-10-2007, 9:47 PM
A plurality opinion is still a win and would really only happen if 3 or 4 justices wanted to also put 14th amendment incorporation in and couldn't get a 5th vote for that and only that. There are not a lot of questions or a lot of ways to slice the baby in Parker and those are the circumstances that most often cause plurality opinions.

"Dismissed as improvidently granted" would only really happen if the pro-gun justices feel like they can't get a majority. It would have the effect of basically upholding Parker as against the Federal Government due to the DC Districts unique standing nature and would be a big instead of huge win for the pro gun side.

However, if its taken, it will be ruled on the merits and I expect cert to be granted.

-Gene

tgriffin
05-11-2007, 8:09 AM
Cool thanks for the clarification Gene.

spgk380
05-11-2007, 9:55 AM
The chief judge does not decide which cases they will hear. This is an accurate summary of how the process works:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stat es#Selection_of_cases

SCOTUS is likely to grant Cert because there is a split between DC and the 5th on one hand and all but one of the other circuits on the other.

-Gene

Sorry Gene, my mistake. Thanks for the clarification. Also, wikipedia (the ultimate source on everything) says this:

The Chief Justice sets the agenda for the weekly meetings where the justices review the petitions for certiorari, to decide whether to hear or deny each case. Less than one percent of cases petitioned to the Supreme Court are agreed to be heard. While Associate Justices may append items to the weekly agenda, in practice this initial agenda setting power of the Chief Justice has significant influence over the direction of the court.

hoffmang
05-11-2007, 11:05 AM
Agenda setting does have influence on case choice, but a high profile case like Parker is going to be the pink elephant if the Chief Judge doesn't put it on the agenda. His effect will more likely have to do with how quickly Cert will be granted and how much time the pro-gun justices will have to feel out whether they have 5 or 6 votes.

-Gene

E Pluribus Unum
05-11-2007, 11:21 AM
His effect will more likely have to do with how quickly Cert will be granted and how much time the pro-gun justices will have to feel out whether they have 5 or 6 votes.

So much for a "politically nuetral" judiciary.....

hoffmang
05-11-2007, 11:43 AM
The Supreme Court is a collection of humans who were politically appointed. What would you expect. Silviera was almost granted cert through that process. That fact alone bodes well for us.

-Gene

xenophobe
05-11-2007, 11:43 AM
The judiciary has never been politically neutral and it was never designed to be that way.

HowardW56
05-11-2007, 7:06 PM
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 04-7041 September Term, 2006


03cv00213


Filed On: May 8, 2007


[1039073]

Shelly Parker, et al.,
Appellants
v.
District of Columbia and Adrian Fenty, Mayor of the
District of Columbia,
Appellees


BEFORE: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Sentelle, Henderson, Randolph,*
Rogers,* Tatel,* Garland,* Brown, Griffith, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges

O R D E R

Appellees’ petition for rehearing en banc was circulated to the full court, and a
vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges eligible to participate did not
vote in favor of the petition. Upon consideration of the foregoing and appellees’ Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) letter, it is

ORDERED


that the petition be denied.


Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY:
Michael C. McGrail
Deputy Clerk


* Circuit Judges Randolph, Rogers, Tatel, and Garland would grant the petition for rehearing en banc.

E Pluribus Unum
05-11-2007, 7:29 PM
The judiciary has never been politically neutral and it was never designed to be that way.

I realize that... but they teach in Government class that we have a political-party based legislature and executive but the judiciary is supposed to be "unbiased" by political affiliation. One of the reasons that supremes are appointed forever- they do not have to worry about political reprisal.


In theory the judiciary concerns itself only with the law and in the case of the supreme court, the constitution. That however has never been the case.

mcubed4130
05-11-2007, 8:21 PM
I realize that... but they teach in Government class that we have a political-party based legislature and executive but the judiciary is supposed to be "unbiased" by political affiliation. One of the reasons that supremes are appointed forever- they do not have to worry about political reprisal.


In theory the judiciary concerns itself only with the law and in the case of the supreme court, the constitution. That however has never been the case.

hahahahahaha.... oh sorry... did I say that out loud? I remember Political Science from College.... I remember what was taught about the government... I remember what each party Democrat and Republican stood for...

And then I got to the real world.

-M3

caliboy1321
05-12-2007, 5:58 PM
Am i crazy or does this sound like a BAD thing?

[/LEFT]
[/INDENT]ORDERED


that the petition be denied.


Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY:
Michael C. McGrail
Deputy Clerk


* Circuit Judges Randolph, Rogers, Tatel, and Garland would grant the petition for rehearing en banc.[/QUOTE]

hoffmang
05-12-2007, 6:01 PM
Its only bad for the petitioners - the City of the District of Columbia.

For once, we pro-gun folks are on the easy side.

-Gene

caliboy1321
05-12-2007, 6:09 PM
I might be mis understanding something here but i thought we want this to to go to SCOTUS?

Mssr. Eleganté
05-12-2007, 6:28 PM
I might be mis understanding something here but i thought we want this to to go to SCOTUS?

The "ORDERED - that the petition be denied" came from the DC Circuit Court. That means they are done with the case. The SCOTUS can now decide if they want to hear the case.

caliboy1321
05-12-2007, 6:30 PM
got it thanks

Bizcuits
05-13-2007, 8:30 AM
What if anything do those in California have to gain from this? Would someone mind taking a second to explain this to me... I'm not a lawyer, so simple terms would be awesome.

G17GUY
05-13-2007, 8:44 AM
What if anything do those in California have to gain from this? Would someone mind taking a second to explain this to me... I'm not a lawyer, so simple terms would be awesome.

Read post number 10 in this thread.

HowardW56
05-13-2007, 9:02 AM
Parker will not nuke all gun laws, fed or state. It's a start, though.

Things that are unobtanium now may be easier to get. I think some fun could be had with Cases which essentially acknowledges that, post-WWII and "special forces" organizations, just about any firearm was suitable for military use.

CA AW bans will likely turn into at least a permitting system, as things like ARs would be among the most 'protected species' of all. Maybe some things like SBRs get easier. Magazine restrictions could be seen falling by the wayside.

Parker likely would not deal with issues like safe storage, transport, insurance, etc. These can all rear their head in the future. (When does 'safe storage' law become ridiculous and a hindrance to reasonable availability of use? All this stuff is for other court cases... the stage has just been set.)

Licensing/registration may (strangely) be intensified, but since Parker makes being armed, in essence, a fundamental right that becomes a moot issue: if just about everyone (i.e., non-felon US citizens) has guns and is in a database of having guns, it's a useless piece of 'noise' data that fades into irrelevance.

The NFA books could open again (as opposed to just pre-May '86), and NFA stuff could - with a fight - be legally acquirable again in CA.

Parker may help with prospective ammunition restrictions/bans too since a gun is useless without ammo. We know the Brady camp is moving from guns to ammo and are calling, internally, ammo control to be the cause of this decade just as AW control was their cause of the 1990s.

If Parker fully flowers, the opposition will of course try other games. Things like transportation restrictions, etc. may not be touched upon at all by Parker. Expect hyperrigorous application of detailed laws to still be the rule of the day.

Matters outside the scope of Parker will still be argued in courts for rest of our prospective lifetimes. Parker just opens the door and acknowledges a fundamental right, with a focus likely just around the home. Free CCWs will not rain down from the sky, although regional variations discretional variations may become causeworthy.

One important issue is that if the DC Circuit's ruling is affirmed by SCOTUS, the existing case law in the Ninth Circuit where they found that the Second Amendment is not an individual right will be overturned, even though it was not by direct appeal of the underlying cases..

I don’t know if any of those cases could be revisited, I’m sure it would depend on the decision handed down by SCOTUS.

hoffmang
05-13-2007, 9:38 AM
As I said earlier in this thread, Silveria found that even if the 2A was an individual right, it wasn't incorporated by the 14th. We'll still need the incorporation case unless we get incredibly lucky at the Supreme Court in Parker.

-Gene

HowardW56
05-13-2007, 9:47 AM
As I said earlier in this thread, Silveria found that even if the 2A was an individual right, it wasn't incorporated by the 14th. We'll still need the incorporation case unless we get incredibly lucky at the Supreme Court in Parker.

-Gene

Sorry, I missed that in your earlier post, I agree with you.

Everything hinges on the content of the SCOTUS decision, even if they affirm. Nothing will be automatic, the only instant effect will to make some existsng case law worthless. For us to benefit, it would take many more years of litlgation.

hoffmang
05-13-2007, 10:48 AM
Howard,

That is correct, but there are two major changes. Federal law will only get better after Parker. There will certainly not be a new AW ban at the Federal level.

The second issue is that fighting incorporation is going to be hard for the States. My personal favorite idea is that Levy and Gura should go file Parker once more to challenge either NYC or Chicago's handgun bans. It would keep things simple as it would be the same case as Parker but would only present the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to either of those states.

A win there opens the floodgates for us to start challenging CA stuff.

-Gene

HowardW56
05-13-2007, 12:11 PM
Howard,

That is correct, but there are two major changes. Federal law will only get better after Parker. There will certainly not be a new AW ban at the Federal level.

The second issue is that fighting incorporation is going to be hard for the States. My personal favorite idea is that Levy and Gura should go file Parker once more to challenge either NYC or Chicago's handgun bans. It would keep things simple as it would be the same case as Parker but would only present the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to either of those states.

A win there opens the floodgates for us to start challenging CA stuff.

-Gene

My thoughts exactly. I think New York is the ideal first target....

hoffmang
05-13-2007, 2:54 PM
The supposed definitive case on the Second Amendment in New York (2nd Circuit) is US v. Toner (http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/docs/toner.pdf). It's a lame case. There is only a paragraph in a case otherwise about illegal purchasing of NFA weapons by the IRA in New York in an FBI sting. It just misreads Miller. Pretty lame and ready for a challenge post Parker.

-Gene

LAK Supply
05-15-2007, 7:38 PM
The supposed definitive case on the Second Amendment in New York (2nd Circuit) is US v. Toner (http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/docs/toner.pdf). It's a lame case. There is only a paragraph in a case otherwise about illegal purchasing of NFA weapons by the IRA in New York in an FBI sting. It just misreads Miller. Pretty lame and ready for a challenge post Parker.

-Gene


Man, you're not kidding Gene. I read through the info on that link....... that's a BAD case to base any kind of jurisprudence on.......

tiki
05-24-2007, 7:10 PM
So, what the hell is the NRA doing???

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8169



:mad:

hoffmang
05-24-2007, 7:21 PM
Old news. That was before the NRA annual meeting and it looks clear that the policy has changed at NRA after the meeting.

-Gene

SemiAutoSam
05-24-2007, 7:22 PM
If the NRA is the country's paid mouthpiece for all of our firearms rights why would they do what the writer of this article is saying ?

Mike Hass ? care to chime in ?

Its also come to my attention that the NRA was helpful in passing the McClure Volkmer act aka the May 19 1986 law.
http://vpc.org/studies/tupone.htm

If this is true it really seems to me that the NRA does not have the country's best interests at heart.

thanks in advance.




For reasons that remain unclear, we faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation. Happily, the case survived. On March 9, in a blockbuster opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned the city's gun ban — holding that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms."

tiki
05-25-2007, 10:00 AM
Old news. That was before the NRA annual meeting and it looks clear that the policy has changed at NRA after the meeting.

-Gene

Ok, thanks Gene.
As far as passing legislation to make the decision moot, that can still be done without the NRA, so I still have a concern about this not hitting SCOTUS. :mad:

hoffmang
05-25-2007, 12:31 PM
tiki,

It is very quiet on the hill in DC now. I do not expect Parker to be mooted before its heard and decided. Mayor Fenty will likely appeal because of local political calculations. We're very likely to get our day in the Supreme Court.

Sam, you were a participant in the original thread that hashed that out and you're ignoring what I said. NRA was worried about this case, but they heard from the membership at the annual meeting that this case should go forward. I think that that's a reasonable situation.

-Gene

whomper
05-25-2007, 1:47 PM
Ok, thanks Gene.
As far as passing legislation to make the decision moot, that can still be done without the NRA, so I still have a concern about this not hitting SCOTUS. :mad:

Can someone explain how legislation can be passed that would 'moot' the Parker decision?
Thanks for all the updates Gene.

hoffmang
05-25-2007, 3:44 PM
If a law were passed by Congress, who have exclusive jurisdiction over DC, that ended the handgun ban before SCOTUS rules on the merits, then there would be no controversy. Its a long history of courts then stepping aside if there exists no actual controversy as courts generally prefer that things be dealt with outside of court.

Here is Dr Volokh on the subject: http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_03_11-2007_03_17.shtml#1173923543

Also, you can search here for Munsingwear.

-Gene