District to Take Gun Case to the Supreme Court

[glockman19]

Here it is.

District to Take Gun Case to the Supreme Court
Appeal could be first Second Amendment case heard in nearly 70 years

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, joined by Attorney General Linda Singer and Police Chief Cathy Lanier, announced that the District of Columbia will seek to uphold the city’s 30-year old gun law and petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision in Parker v. District of Columbia.

“We have made the determination that this law can and should be defended and we are willing to take our case to the highest court in the land to protect the city’s residents,” said Mayor Fenty. “Our handgun law has saved countless lives – keeping guns out of the hands of those who would hurt others or themselves.”

On March 9, 2007, in a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down a District of Columbia ban on keeping handguns in homes as a violation of the Second Amendment. The decision did not address provisions barring possession of guns outside the home. The law has been in place for more than 30 years.

The ruling marked the first time that a federal appeals court has struck down a gun regulation on the grounds that the Second Amendment protects an individual's rights to bear arms. On May 8, the full DC Circuit Court denied the District’s petition for rehearing en banc in the case over the dissent of four judges.

After careful review and consideration, Fenty and Singer decided to take the city’s case to the Supreme Court, which has not taken up the issue of the Second Amendment in almost 70 years.

To meet the 90-day deadline to file a petition for certiorari, Attorney General Singer today will file a 30-day extension so that the city may file its request with the high court on September 5th.

“The Second Amendment does not prevent the District of Columbia, like other states, from enacting reasonable regulations to limit gun possessions and protect its residents. We believe that we are right as a matter of law and are hopeful we will prevail,” said Singer.

[glockman19]

How will this affect the CA AWB? Will it de deemed unconstitutional? How narrowly will it be Interpreted? Will this in any way help us to change our laws?

[bwiese]

It's not the be-all and end-all case, but it's a start and pulls the keystone out.

It's eminently winnable w/current court composition, a loss will be narrowly confined and not set us back that far, and if won other cases can be built off it.

Thank you, Mayor Fenty.

[JOEKILLA]

Alright, here we go.

[EastBayRidge]

More from SCOTUSBLOG here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/07/second_amendmen.html

[LAK Supply]

Here goes....... This should get interesting!

Our handgun law has saved countless lives – keeping guns out of the hands of those who would hurt others or themselves.

Translation: It's our job to save you from yourselves you idiots.

Amazing...absolutely amazing. I hope these maroons don't actually believe their own statements.

[mblat]

It's not the be-all and end-all case, but it's a start and pulls the keystone out.

It's eminently winnable w/current court composition, a loss will be narrowly confined and not set us back that far, and if won other cases can be built off it.

Thank you, Mayor Fenty.

Alito, Roberts, Thomas - pro
Souter, Brayer, Stevens - no
Scalia - probable
Kennedy - ?????
Ginsburg - possible, not probable

that is eminently winnable in you opinion? What don't I see?

[PanzerAce]

:party:

[aileron]

Finally.

[1064chubbs]

would this in any way help the Ed Hunt case?

[bear308]

wooohoooo, into the breach dear friends

[tiki]

I'm happy to see that we may finally get a decision on the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court. However, I am still a bit concerned since the outcome is not certain. I worry that during the time that DC has taken to decide on filing its appeal, people, Fenty or others, have played golf, gone to dinners, or had informal get togethers with members of the court to gauge how the rulling might go. I don't know enough about the supreme court and some legal manuevers to understand exactly what these additional or modified questions are that DC is asking. Could it be that DC received some indications from whoever, on how to phrase some questions to steer the court from making a ruling directly on the 2nd Amendment and give it some room to skirt the main issue in favor of the side issues?

[Muzz]

I'm happy to see that we may finally get a decision on the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court. However, I am still a bit concerned since the outcome is not certain.

The outcome of pretty much any case is uncertain. Unless you're the prosecutor and your name is Haney and the judge's name is Hang 'Em High Haney and you're in the county courthouse in Pixley.

I believe they are cocky and as such do not even come close to grasping the sheer logic and soundness of the Parker decision. They don't think that way. As Spock would say: "Their arguement contains gaping defects in logic" which they are incapable of seeing.

Let the battle begin.

[HK fan]

I hope they get their asses handed to them

[6172crew]

I hope they cover ammo in the de-brief, the gungrabbers have been hitting us hard on that front and I see them going further.

[Wizard99]

So the question I have is what happens if Stevens dies (he's quite old) during the course of this case and they split 4-4 on the issue.

[Liberty1]

We few, we happy few, we band of calguners;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And sheeple in America now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Parker's Victory day.




liberally borrowed from the bard :chris:: http://www.chronique.com/Library/Knights/crispen.htm

[JawBone]

It will be good day when we finally acknowledge that the 2A confers an Individual Right and take out the main opposition argument at the knees.

If they grant cert, this will be a very significant moment in 2A history. "Into the breach," indeed.

[CCWFacts]

Thank you Mayor Fenty! In reality he had no choice. a) if he didn't appeal his opponents would say he didn't do enough to protect DC residents and b) the next case would be someone wanting to own and carry an M4 or a G18 in DC, and that he would have had to fight.

And I'm cautiously optimistic about this court's stance on the 2A.

This situation has the greatest potential to affect those of us in California, NY, NJ, etc, where we are burdened with absurd laws. Most of the rest of the country has state law that is borrowed from federal law. The biggest win for this at a fed. level would be striking down some parts of the NFA (922(o) for example).

Maybe someday I will be able to own a Skorpion, the greatest weapon ever created!

[The Soup Nazi]

We few, we happy few, we band of calguners;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And sheeple in America now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Parker's Victory day.




liberally borrowed from the bard :chris:: http://www.chronique.com/Library/Knights/crispen.htm

Ah, comparing the gun grabbers to the French, who themselves felt they possessed noble blood and charged against the English with too much impetus, well played.

[hoffmang]

Alito, Roberts, Thomas - pro
Souter, Brayer, Stevens - no
Scalia - probable
Kennedy - ?????
Ginsburg - possible, not probable

that is eminently winnable in you opinion? What don't I see?

Uhh... I disagree with your analysis:
http://www.hoffmang.com/archives/000716.html#000716

I think we can get both Souter and maybe even Ginsburg. Worst case here is 4-2-3 from my reading.

All we need is 1 vote to win Parker.

-Gene

[Librarian]

Dave Hardy (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/07/dc_to_file_for.php) has a guesstimate of the timeline:
The press release, which I'll paste in extended remarks below, says they will ask for an extension of time to Sept. 5 to file.

That'd make the timetable roughly:

Petition: Sept. 5

Response due 30 days after petition is docketed, roughly Oct. 5.

Court returns to start new Term ... first Monday in October is a holiday, so I don't know if that counts, but either Oct. 9 or 15. It rules on the petition when it gets to it.

If it grants, DC's briefs are due 45 days from the grant -- let's guesstimate late November or early December -- Parker's briefs are due 35 days from that, maybe early January, and DC's reply would be due 35 days after that, say early to mid February.

[Rhys898]

I'm curious to know what history books they have been looking at to make a statement like this. (following quote taken from brady center press release)

Second Amendment Fantasy, a “rolling critique” of the Parker opinion authored by the Brady Center legal staff, can be found at www.bradycenter.org and www.gunlawsuits.org. The critique provides an in-depth discussion of the legal, historical and logical errors in the Parker decision.

Jer

[Rob P.]

I think the Hardy timeline has an error in it.

The court has 30 days after the petition is docketed. That means that the court, when it returns, will have 30 days to decide Certiorari (Cert).

This means that the 45 days for DC to file the brief starts around Nov 5 at the latest (could start earlier but we should assume latest). A month later than the timeline gives and results in Mid/Late December filing due date.

Parker's brief is then due 35 days later or Late January 2008.

35 days more for DC's reply and you have early March 2008 which is a whole lot later than early/mid Feb.

The court schedules and hears argument on the petition when it calendars it. I think they have 90 days after argument to publish the decision. If the court calendars for an end of term hearing, we possibly won't see the opinion until late next summer or even early fall.

Gonna be a long year waiting.

[PanzerAce]

Something in me doubts that with a case of this magnitude that they will take that long to get it through the system. Afterall, it has been 70 years or so since the last 2A case.

[FreshTapCoke]

I can already feel it; to me, this decision will be one of those defining moments in the history of this Country.

[Liberty1]

http://www.gunlawsuits.org/features/fantasy/pdf/parker-opinion-critique.pdf

And this is binding how? Well... on their web site...it is the Brady Bunch's "fantasy" world!

Jeffers v. Fair, 33 Ga. 347 (Ga. 1862), a Confederate States of America case, stated: “The militia may be defined a body of citizens enrolled for military discipline. They are enrolled by State authority with reference to State boundaries; they are organized, officered and disciplined by State authority * * *.”

[hoffmang]

The briefing periods will be very long. Both sides will dot every I and cross every T. I do agree that SCOTUS decision windows will likely be brief.

But not so brief as to not have me on pins and needles.

-Gene

[1911su16b870]

It will be good day when we finally acknowledge that the 2A confers an Individual Right and take out the main opposition argument at the knees.

If they grant cert, this will be a very significant moment in 2A history. "Into the breach," indeed.

+1

I pray SCOTUS upholds Parker and keeps RKBA an individual right. I believe our founding fathers would smile upon such a decision.

[Liberty1]

...someone know how to write a "BRIEF OF THE CALGUNS.NET ASSOCIATION AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PARKER" so we can get our .02 on the table in this fight?

[Fjold]

Well, I for one am glad to see a case go to the SCOTUS, especially one that the preceeding court has ruled in our favor on instead of being the ones doing the scrambling.



BTW gentlemen, it's "breech" not "breach"

Defined by Webster as "the part of a firearm at the rear of the barrel"

Breach is defined as "infraction or violation of a law, obligation, tie, or standard"

[bear308]

^oooops

[JawBone]

Begging to differ:

From Websters: Breach2: a broken, ruptured, or torn condition or area b : a gap (as in a wall) made by battering

It's from Henry V: "Once more unto the breach..."

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more,
Or close the wall up with our English dead!
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility;
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger:
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood.
"Henry V" (5.3.44-51)

A play on words in the context of this posting to be sure, but to be correct, the proper usage is breach.

I think we have the votes, the clear intention and the scholarly support for an individual right - fight on.

[hoffmang]

The_quark and I were having just that conversation about Amicus briefs. The thing is that you need to brief a novel issue. He and I have a novel issue (what the outcome of a "states rights" ruling means for actual state sovereignty, but California may not be the place for that argument to come from.

-Gene

[CCWFacts]

I think we have the votes, the clear intention and the scholarly support for an individual right - fight on.

The scholarly debates may seem academic and detached from reality, but in a case like this they may be very important. And we have strong support in the scholarly debates, even from liberal legal scholars.

This will be the most exciting (for me) SCOTUS ruling in a long long time!

[Rob P.]

THE best outcome would be for the SCOTUS to deny Cert. By doing so they uphold the decision in Parker as correctly decided and that overrules all the conflicting decisions elsewhere. No briefs, no waiting, no possibility of a split decision or anti-gun / anti-2d Amendment decision.

But that's a REAL fantasy.

[JawBone]

THE best outcome would be for the SCOTUS to deny Cert. By doing so they uphold the decision in Parker as correctly decided and that overrules all the conflicting decisions elsewhere.

That would be the fine if we lived in DC - BUT we live in CA under the rule of the 9th Circuit which maintains that we have no individual right to bear arms (search for Silveira). The only Court that can overrule the 9th is SCOTUS. I'm crossing my fingers for cert.

Denying cert doesn't overrule or change anything.

[Californio]

Money Question ?

Is Cato the best place to send money for the support of Parker, or is there a better organization to support?

[Liberty1]

Money Question ?

Is Cato the best place to send money for the support of Parker, or is there a better organization to support?

Cato is a great organization to support. They backed this from the start.

from: http://www.cato.org/

What's New

D.C. Asks Supreme Court to Review Gun Ban Ruling

On July 16, Mayor Adrian Fenty announced that he will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a March decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit striking down on Second Amendment grounds Washington, D.C.'s firearms ban. If the Supreme Court agrees to review this case, Parker v. District of Columbia, it will be the first time the Court has considered the meaning of the Second Amendment in nearly 70 years. "This case is enormously important, not only to the Parker plaintiffs and other D.C. residents, but to persons nationwide who care about the Constitution and the right to bear arms," said plaintiff's co-counsel and Cato scholar Robert Levy.

[Anthonysmanifesto]

BTW gentlemen, it's "breech" not "breach"

Defined by Webster as "the part of a firearm at the rear of the barrel"

Breach is defined as "infraction or violation of a law, obligation, tie, or standard"

I think it means pants

breech(brch)
n.
1. The lower rear portion of the human trunk; the buttocks.
2.
a. A breech presentation or delivery.
b. A fetus in breech presentation.
3. breeches
a. Knee breeches.
b. Informal Trousers.

[hoffmang]

Gura and Levy financed this case pretty much out of their own pockets. Levy is Cato affiliated, but Cato only provided moral support. NRA ILA and others will be writing Amicus Briefs so that is one major way you can support this.

-Gene

[Fjold]

Begging to differ:

From Websters: Breach2: a broken, ruptured, or torn condition or area b : a gap (as in a wall) made by battering

It's from Henry V: "Once more unto the breach..."



A play on words in the context of this posting to be sure, but to be correct, the proper usage is breach.

I think we have the votes, the clear intention and the scholarly support for an individual right - fight on.


Jawbone, you are correct, my bad.

[1911_sfca]

Awesome news. Here's to the dimwits in DC who are taking this to the Supes.

[CCWFacts]

If they really do decide that the 2A is an individual right to own militia (infantry) type weapons, what's on your wish list? First and last on mine is the CZ Skorpion. The mightiest and most awesome weapon ever invented.

[Sgt Raven]

Whether remotely possible or not, if the Supremes strike down the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and make a specific ruling that the 2nd Amendment to the constitution does not grant an individual right to keep and bear arms, wholesale disarming here in good ole California will be imminent...Bank on it!

Things are going to get real, real interesting then!

1. the BOR doesn't grant anything.

2. the 9th has already ruled against us, Parker can't hurt us anymore. But a ruling in our favor could help us.

[hoffmang]

Whether remotely possible or not, if the Supremes strike down the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and make a specific ruling that the 2nd Amendment to the constitution does not grant an individual right to keep and bear arms, wholesale disarming here in good ole California will be imminent...Bank on it!

Things are going to get real, real interesting then!

You actually think that CA Legislators are restrained by worrying that gun control might be unconstitutional! :smilielol5:

Uhh.. yeah... I think they're simply of afraid of the fact that if they go too far a clear majority of voters would vote 'em out.

-Gene

[50 Freak]

seek to uphold the city’s 30-year old gun law
this law can and should be defended and we are willing to take our case to the highest court in the land to protect the city’s residents,” said Mayor Fenty. “Our handgun law has saved countless lives – keeping guns out of the hands of those who would hurt others or themselves.”


Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't DC have the highest murder per capital rate a few years ago???? Apparently this 30 year old law didn't do much

[xenophobe]

This is great news!


However, mark my words!

Why would we need to mark your words? You clearly do that well enough yourself! :laugh: :rolleyes: :p

[JawBone]

[QUOTE]Whether remotely possible or not, if the Supremes strike down the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and make a specific ruling that the 2nd Amendment to the constitution does not grant an individual right to keep and bear arms, wholesale disarming here in good ole California will be imminent...Bank on it!

I don't see how that follows - as has been pointed out by others, a Parker loss would not change much, if anything, in CA. We already live without an individual right.

Wholesale Disarming? Do you think any US State, even the PRK has the "moxy" or the means to try that one? That would be a disaster. This State isn't going to disarm anyone. Maybe - maybe they would make us register long guns.

My concern is that SCOTUS guarantees an Individual RKBA but say that "reasonable" gun control measures do not infringe that right. As for where that leaves AW? Good question. As for what is "reasonable" -- that will take years to figure out. So will that really be a "win?"

[Scarecrow Repair]

Seriously, though. I really do think that if the USSC rules "no individual right", we are TRULY FACT.

Criminy, stop panicing. Most states have RKBA in their own constitutions. If all those states repeal their own RKBA, then public opinion has changed radically and gun owners have become a tiny minority.

Stop panicing. Start thinking.

[xenophobe]

Thanks alot xeno...NOW everyone else knows that I am a legend in my own mind! :owned:

(As if THAT wasn't already obvious!)

:laugh: ;)

Seriously, though. I really do think that if the USSC rules "no individual right", we are TRULY FACT.

If that were to really happen, which is most unlikely, it wouldn't affect us at all. As has been said, being in the 9th Circuit, we currently have no 2nd Amendment right and every suit that's ever brought up a ban as being unconstitutional has failed miserably. Remember, even the SF handgun ban ruling wasn't about the 2nd Amendment, it was State preemption at the heart of the fight.

At this point, Parker can only be a win, especially given the question the DC Circuit is handing to SCOTUS. For really the first time, SCOTUS will address whether the 2nd Amendment is a really a individual right and whether a ban is Constitutional. Following the great historical perspective of the Parker reversal, I don't see how SCOTUS could hand the original court a win.

I do also suspect that SCOTUS will go into greater detail and perhaps lay the foundation to, or even going farther and actually providing the historical footnote of intent of the 14th and the 2nd's incorporation with it, and if this is the case, call it major victory with positive ramifications in the not too distant future.

We have far more to win than we do have to lose at this point.

[hoffmang]

The Supreme Court can dance, but not even they can dance past having the Second mean something. If its ruled not to be an individual right (not likely), then certain states can pass or rely on existing state malitia clauses and basically opt their citizens out of federal firearms laws.

I know the antis haven't thought that one through.

Also, what do you think the political reaction to a ruling that the Second Amendment isn't an individual right will be? You think contributions to the NRA will go down? I expect that all of a sudden other state citizens will care a heck of a lot more about what happens in California, Illinois, and Massachusetts than they do now. Heck - people in the 5th Circuit have an individual federal right as well as a state right.

-Gene

[Rob P.]

That would be the fine if we lived in DC - BUT we live in CA under the rule of the 9th Circuit which maintains that we have no individual right to bear arms (search for Silveira). The only Court that can overrule the 9th is SCOTUS. I'm crossing my fingers for cert.

Denying cert doesn't overrule or change anything.

This is incorrect. Since Silviera was never appealed to SCOTUS it has no precedental value on a national level unless the non-9th circuit jurisdiction accepts the ruling (which they don't have to and often don't).

A denial of cert in Parker means that SCOTUS deems that Parker is correctly decided and they do not have anything to add to the existing decision. It's a rubber stamp of Parker as written.

By ramification, because SCOTUS controls the whole U.S., any other case in any district which was not appealed to SCOTUS is incorrectly decided if it does not conform to the decison in Parker and is thereby overruled.

Denial of Cert means that the case is correct and controlling. Any previous case in all district which is in contrast with that decision cannot be correct. Parker becomes controlling law nation wide by default.

SCOTUS will probably accept Cert because of the conflict in the various districts and between districts and not because of the Constitutional issue (although they will have to decide the Constitutional issue). They don't have to but they probably will. If/when they do, the outcome is in doubt because no one can really know what they will say.

Denial of cert is a sure winner. But it most likely won't happen.

[hoffmang]

Denial of Cert has no precedentail value whatsoever. It will simply mean that in the District Circuit, the Parker ruling remains valid.

Good explanation here: http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2004/10/denial-of-cert.html

-Gene

[JawBone]

A denial of cert in Parker means that SCOTUS deems that Parker is correctly decided and they do not have anything to add to the existing decision. It's a rubber stamp of Parker as written.

Denial of cert is a sure winner. But it most likely won't happen.

That is just FLAT WRONG. Denial of Cert simply means SCOTUS does not want to weigh in on the issue at this time (it is premature, or they are scared to touch it). If they deny cert Parker will be the law in the DC circuit and Silveira will be the law in the 9th.

This is one reason why SCOTUS will grant cert - because there is a "split in the circuits" -- people in different states living under different interpretations of the US Const.

[FatKatMatt]

This is great news, can only hope that SCOTUS will rule in our favor.

[tiki]

The Supreme Court can dance, but not even they can dance past having the Second mean something. If its ruled not to be an individual right (not likely), then certain states can pass or rely on existing state malitia clauses and basically opt their citizens out of federal firearms laws.
-Gene

Since Anti's want to contort the 2nd Amemendment to mean that it only applies to militias because they are mentioned, then, couldn't the militia also be protected by the wording of the 2nd?

If the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purposes of a militia, then, shouldn't militias be protected by the 2nd?

[hoffmang]

10th,

The last time California attempted a broad ban on classes of firearms, Republicans swept the elections.

-Gene

[hoffmang]

10th,

In the late 80's a proposition to ban all handguns was put on the ballot in California. That proposition lead to a whole lot of republican legislators and a republican governor.

Choose not to know your history at your peril.

-Gene

[Glasshat]

Does the California legislature need an opinion from the USSC to pass more anti-gun laws? Can't it ban classes of firearms right now if it wants to? I know the ultimate goal is to ban 100% of guns, which is hard to do without the support of a negative ruling on 2A, but what is stopping a 90% ban?

[hoffmang]

The only thing stopping a 90% ban is our efforts to keep legislation from passing. That results from the fact that if the CA Legislature goes too far, even people who don't generally support gun rights will start asking questions.

-Gene

[Sgt Raven]

If SCOTUS rules that the 2A is a state right only, then the pot went from slowly getting hot to full boil and look out what follows. :eek:

[Glasshat]

The only thing stopping a 90% ban is our efforts to keep legislation from passing. That results from the fact that if the CA Legislature goes too far, even people who don't generally support gun rights will start asking questions.

-Gene

Lobbying efforts certainly help guide the legislators. What about the California Supreme Court though? What's stopping it from inventing a 90% ban right now based on whatever it is they base their unconstitutional rulings on?

[hoffmang]

As much as they might try, they have a hard time writing new law.

Remember that they actually ruled on Harrot.

-Gene

[Glasshat]

Good point Gene! Thanks.

[simonov]

10th,

The last time California attempted a broad ban on classes of firearms, Republicans swept the elections.

Really? I don't recall the Republican takeover in Sacramento since all .50 BMG rifles were banned, or since semi-automatic centerfire rifles with detachable magazines and pistol grips were banned.

I do, however, recall some of the worst gun control legislation in California being signed by Republican governors.

Just trying too keep it real here.

[C.G.]

Really? I don't recall the Republican takeover in Sacramento since all .50 BMG rifles were banned, or since semi-automatic centerfire rifles with detachable magazines and pistol grips were banned.

I do, however, recall some of the worst gun control legislation in California being signed by Republican governors.

Just trying too keep it real here.


I didn't know Davis was a Republican.:confused:

[hoffmang]

Siminov,

My comments about party were not about better or worse - it was recognizing the threat to incumbency that passing gun bans creates. AW bans were not sweeping bans on a class of guns in the way that a handgun ban is. Those incumbency threats are what keep really nasty anti-gun legislation from passing even here.

-Gene

[rocknut]

So would a positive ruling by scotus have an effect on the BATFE and their regulation of class 3 weapons? How about Cali's ban on class 3? How about silencers? This is exciting news for sure. Maybe I won't have to move to Idaho.

[hoffmang]

rocknut,

Short term, it will impact BATFE but it will take a couple more years to trickle back into California.

-Gene

[rocknut]

Thank you. Any chance it will have have an effect on our ban on silencers?

[luvtolean]

Thank you. Any chance it will have have an effect on our ban on silencers?

Funny you mention that, I'd rather have the ability to sound suppress a 10/22 than have a weapon with a happy switch on it.

It would make finding a property I could plink tin cans on my porch from, without undue neighbor interference/annoyance, much easier.

[mblat]

Funny you mention that, I'd rather have the ability to sound suppress a 10/22 than have a weapon with a happy switch on it.

It would make finding a property I could plink tin cans on my porch from, without undue neighbor interference/annoyance, much easier.

I actually have to join you. I think that perfect HD weapon is short barreled suppressed AR15. Not to mention that those damn gophers on my backyard could really use some lead in their diet.

[BigDogatPlay]

I have to believe that the SCOTUS will grant certiorari on this case. There is far too much dissonance between the circuits on the question of Amendment 2 as individual right. The Ninth has said no, numerous times. The Fifth clearly said yes in Emerson and the SCOTUS let that stand without further comment. All of the circuits have differing opinions. The justices have to understand, I think, that Parker is the opportunity to settle the question of law. The case is clear, concise and pretty unambigious. The DC Circuit's opinion was very sound and well grounded.

If they pass on taking the appeal, then our friends in DC are the big winner. We are still out in the cold. If they, on the other hand, take the case and rule in the plaintiff's favor that trumps all the opinions of the Ninth then and there and it can be argued as such. the only thing needed is viable test cases here using a favorable ruling in Parker and we might actually see some relief.

Change for us won't happen immediately with a favorable ruling on Parker, but it sure moves us down the road a mile or two. The next thing, I think, we need to do is get an initiative on the ballot to include RKBA in the state constitution. There is no RKBA in California's document and successive Attorneys General from Lundgren forward have argued successfully based on that lack of clear statement. Putting an unambiguous RKBA statement in the state constitution, that incorporates Amendment 2, and combined with a favorable ruling by the SCOTUS on Parker and we just might be able to turn the tables on the Lockyers, Scotts and Chins of California.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

I think I will plan a vacation to D.C. when oral arguments are heard. I have family in the area and think this is a great reason to plan a family trip.

Twice in the past I have waited from the wee hours of the morning to obtain a seat in the court for oral arguments. Quite an experience for those that are interested in the law. The fact that this case has such huge implications for me personally will make it all the better.

[hoffmang]

The next thing, I think, we need to do is get an initiative on the ballot to include RKBA in the state constitution. There is no RKBA in California's document and successive Attorneys General from Lundgren forward have argued successfully based on that lack of clear statement. Putting an unambiguous RKBA statement in the state constitution, that incorporates Amendment 2, and combined with a favorable ruling by the SCOTUS on Parker and we just might be able to turn the tables on the Lockyers, Scotts and Chins of California.

I agreed with you all the way up to this point. We are not going to get an RKBA clause by a ballot measure. It has been tried and we really do not have the funds for it.

Instead, we're going to be able to incorporate a win in Parker against the States in subsequent (much cheaper) litigation. Note that there are still some cases right here in California floating around where the Second Amendment challenge is still ripe on appeal and that timing could work out to bring incorporation just after Parker in an existing case.

-Gene

[CCWFacts]

The moral and psychological impacts of a favorable Parker decision would be just as important as legal consequences. A good decision would re-energize many gun owners here, and give us a boost. We would be able to say that the Supreme Court has agreed with our views. That has tremendous psychological power and it could translate (maybe) into some legislative momentum for us.

As for ballot initiatives.... those sound like a good idea but they are not practical. Even Arnie was not able to get any of his passed, and they were for some obvious and reasonable things and they had lots of support and money behind them. Unless we had a dozen multi-millionaire backers to pay for the paid signatures, it would not happen. And then we would need $100mil in campaign money. And it still wouldn't happen. The idea of RKBA doesn't have enough mainstream support in this state. That's the facts.

In theory we don't need a RKBA provision because our state constitution incorporates all the federal constitutional rights. In reality our only hope for legal support for RKBA in this state is a favorable Parker ruling.

This is an exciting time!

[BigDogatPlay]

We recalled a sitting Governor one year into his second term from the grassroots without very much money at the start. And he won re-election with something close to 60% of the vote as I recall. Getting it rolling is the key. Gaining popular support through active and aggressive campaigning on talk radio. It's been tried before, so what? Maybe it takes years, but it can be done.

The argument that the state consitution incorporates hasn't won any favorable decisions that count in the state courts and the Ninth regarding RKBA. The rulings have consistently held that there is no RKBA in the state constitution and that Amendment 2 is a collective right. Parker could change the latter but does nothing for the former.

Schwarzenegger's ballot propositions were extremely ill conceived efforts to solve problems, some real and some imagined. They were poorly marketed and were, in essence, too big a bite of pie. That illustrates the key problem with Schwarzenegger... the mandate for change that swept him into office gave him an inflated idea of what the voters were willing to do for him. He did not understand that in a bureaucracy as staggering as the State of California that change is incremental and that while executives can be changed rapidly the underlying bureaucracy can not. And I'm not sure if he has learned that yet,

My fear is that even with a favorable decision in Parker that ultimately the state courts and the Ninth are still going to have room to weasel based on the hackneyed argument that there is no clear RKBA in the state constitution and the bags of precedent already on the book in the circuit affirming that rather glaring ommission as a matter of law.

And after all, considering the weight a clear unambiguous statement in the constitution would bring, it doesn't hurt to work toward it, does it?

Great debate by the way..... thanks for it.

[rocknut]

We recalled a sitting Governor one year into his second term from the grassroots without very much money at the start. And he won re-election with something close to 60% of the vote as I recall. Getting it rolling is the key. Gaining popular support through active and aggressive campaigning on talk radio. It's been tried before, so what? Maybe it takes years, but it can be done.


While that is true, it took Davis destroying the budget surplus and signing all of those stupid energy contracts for him to get the boot. Everybody in the PRK got the shaft due to his actions. Without the same type of radical screw up by the anti-gunners, we don't have the majority support in the state to make such a change. Add to that, the majority of people are likely to see it as a waste of money due to the second ammendment so it will be harder to get financial backing as well. I really like the idea, but I think it will take a sweep in the gun rights movement, in either direction, before it can be done reasonably.

[bwiese]

For those re-advocating a California RKBA constitutional amendment, please re-think it:

(1) It costs on the same order to run a successful ballot campaign in CA as it does running to run for Presidency nationwide. The various gambling, health insurance, etc. ballot proposals have $50Million throw at them to even have a fighting chance.

(2) You get to #1 above if and only if your campaign to get on the ballot is successful and has at least 20% extra signatures above the min. amount (to nullify result of any possible incorrect/invalid signature info).

(3) You get to #2 above if and only if you spend $$$$$ to get on the ballot by using paid signature gatherers at $1 - $3 per signature. Getting signatures of gunnies hanging out at gun ranges and gunshops just won't cut it, as won't gunnies setting up a few informal signup sheets that end up having a high count of invalid/incomplete signatures. You need hundreds of folks in larger counties on a full-time basis dogging people at the supermarket, Home Depot, etc.

(4) Aside from all the above, what if you lose? It makes things worse and falls into Silviera-level stupidity. Don't give up your rights via a media-fed mass stampede against them - better to go the 'precision' route thru legislators and courts where we can exert some control.

[tiki]

better to go the 'precision' route thru legislators and courts where we can exert some control.

Excellent my friend.

[bulgron]

Watch for Ginsburg to pull a few rabbits out of the hat also. Wouldn't it be just delightful if on this issue she turns out to be for Clinton what Earl Warren was to Eisnehower?


Hello. I usually just lurk on this board, so I believe this is my first post here. But the above remark has me curious.

What is it about Ginsburg that has you believing she might vote our way? I'm curious because in the recent past it seems that Ginsburg is very much at odds with the current conservative majority on the court. Plus, I looked up her C.V. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/ginsburg.bio.html) and she looks like a big city (notably, New York) lawyer. I haven't noticed the big city lawyer types are generally pro-RKBA, if you know what I mean.

Don't get me wrong: I'm convinced that if there's a shred of intellectual integrity on the court, we will win the Parker appeal (assuming the court takes it up). What's more, in a sane world we'll win that in a unanimous verdict. But I keep looking at the people on the court, and the big city types like Ginsburg and Breyer just don't seem like the kind who will vote pro-individual right, given how much the liberal legal types utterly hate the idea of individuals walking around with firearms.

One other thought: I wonder if it's possible to win the Parker appeal, but still not have the argument settled. If the decision goes 5-4 (as the controversial decisions have been of late), that just gives the Brady Bunch the ability down the road to claim the Parker decision was an aberrant finding, and was purely the result of a radical court put together by George Bush. This argument strengthens if Bush actually finds himself impeached, which many liberals are screaming to have happen.

Or am I all wet on that concern?

Seriously, I don't see the anti-RKBA crowd giving up the collective right argument unless that argument is completely and utterly nuked into oblivion. For that, we need an exceptionally strong and clear ruling by better than 5-4. If we somehow won 9-0 or even 8-1, we can thumb our noses at that tired old lie forever....

Just my two cents.

[stator]

For those re-advocating a California RKBA constitutional amendment, please re-think it:


(3) You get to #2 above if and only if you spend $$$$$ to get on the ballot by using paid signature gatherers at $1 - $3 per signature. Getting signatures of gunnies hanging out at gun ranges and gunshops just won't cut it, as won't gunnies setting up a few informal signup sheets that end up having a high count of invalid/incomplete signatures. You need hundreds of folks in larger counties on a full-time basis dogging people at the supermarket, Home Depot, etc.



Geoff Metcalf missed the required signatures for the "Veto the Governor" by a small amount. I believe the required number of signatures would have been reached if he and his staff would have informed the unpaid signature gathers of the runny tally. Instead, he kept tight control to the detriment of the project.

Many on his staff later formed a non-profit for CA gun rights. They raised some money and then proceed to blow it all on attending the NRA convention (which was held in NV that year, I believe).

These people seem to fade from the spotlight by, I suggest, poor management. What it will take above all is a benevolent leader who puts CA gun owners above his/her self-interest first, then willing contributors from gun owners. I believe Peter Kasler stated this when he burned out trying to lead us without us making any meaningful contributions.

[hoffmang]

Leadership requires more than being out in front.

-Gene

[mblat]

Hello. I usually just lurk on this board, so I believe this is my first post here. But the above remark has me curious.

What is it about Ginsburg that has you believing she might vote our way? I'm curious because in the recent past it seems that Ginsburg is very much at odds with the current conservative majority on the court. Plus, I looked up her C.V. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/ginsburg.bio.html) and she looks like a big city (notably, New York) lawyer. I haven't noticed the big city lawyer types are generally pro-RKBA, if you know what I mean.

Don't get me wrong: I'm convinced that if there's a shred of intellectual integrity on the court, we will win the Parker appeal (assuming the court takes it up). What's more, in a sane world we'll win that in a unanimous verdict. But I keep looking at the people on the court, and the big city types like Ginsburg and Breyer just don't seem like the kind who will vote pro-individual right, given how much the liberal legal types utterly hate the idea of individuals walking around with firearms.

One other thought: I wonder if it's possible to win the Parker appeal, but still not have the argument settled. If the decision goes 5-4 (as the controversial decisions have been of late), that just gives the Brady Bunch the ability down the road to claim the Parker decision was an aberrant finding, and was purely the result of a radical court put together by George Bush. This argument strengthens if Bush actually finds himself impeached, which many liberals are screaming to have happen.

Or am I all wet on that concern?

Seriously, I don't see the anti-RKBA crowd giving up the collective right argument unless that argument is completely and utterly nuked into oblivion. For that, we need an exceptionally strong and clear ruling by better than 5-4. If we somehow won 9-0 or even 8-1, we can thumb our noses at that tired old lie forever....

Just my two cents.

There are several reasons to believe that Ginsburg MAY, just may vote our way on 2nd.
1. She does have libertarian streak in her. Over the years she casted few votes for personal freedom, some argue that logical extension of those votes are vote for individual interpretation of 2nd.
2. There was a fairly recent decision by Rehnquist court. While it had nothing to do with gun issue it did name "right to bear arms" in context as individual right. Ginsburg concurred with this decision.

I know it is not very reassuring, but still her vote isn't lost from the start, not like some other votes.

As far as the rest of the stuff. Bush won't get impeached - so we don't have to worry about this.
Gene seems to think that we are going to get 6-3 or even 7-2 decision. I know that Gene isn't all seeing, but his opinions usually worse something, simply because they are well thought out.

[bulgron]

Gene seems to think that we are going to get 6-3 or even 7-2 decision. I know that Gene isn't all seeing, but his opinions usually worse something, simply because they are well thought out.

Please forgive my ignorance, but who is Gene? :)

[kap]

Please forgive my ignorance, but who is Gene? :)

Two posts above you ...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/member.php?u=7151

[hoffmang]

Gene seems to think that we are going to get 6-3 or even 7-2 decision. I know that Gene isn't all seeing, but his opinions usually worse something, simply because they are well thought out.

Snicker. My opinions are certainly worse something :D .

I've never said 7-2. I think 6-3 is the best we can do, but I would somewhat expect 4, 2, 3 for us as I think about it which is almost 6-3.

I posted my analysis here and a summary on my blog:
http://www.hoffmang.com/archives/000716.html#000716

At the end of the day, I'll take any win on this.

-Gene

[bwiese]

Geoff Metcalf missed the required signatures for the "Veto the Governor" by a small amount. I believe the required number of signatures would have been reached if he and his staff would have informed the unpaid signature gathers of the runny tally. Instead, he kept tight control to the detriment of the project.

Yup. So if that apparently more-organized, more popular task failed, imagine the odds on an volunteer RKBA effort.

There is some logic in not divulging the tally as that could result in a slowdown. Salesmen often slow down when they hit quota, unless there's bonus/escalators in their pay structure.

Perhaps the paid signature gatherers (did the Metcalf-driven recall campaign use paid ones?) could have a bonus structure, with the bonus paid *after* certification/validation of signatures showed acceptably low levels of invalid ones.

[CCWFacts]

If the decision goes 5-4 (as the controversial decisions have been of late), that just gives the Brady Bunch the ability down the road to claim the Parker decision was an aberrant finding, and was purely the result of a radical court put together by George Bush.

Or am I all wet on that concern?

I think you're all wet on that concern, but there is a variation of it that is real.

If it's 5-4 I don't think that affects anything. What they could do is take the case and then wriggle out of the issue, or issue a ruling which makes it even murkier. I don't think they'll do that because their job is take up and decide things, not to shirk decisions. But they could.

Seriously, I don't see the anti-RKBA crowd giving up the collective right argument unless that argument is completely and utterly nuked into oblivion. For that, we need an exceptionally strong and clear ruling by better than 5-4. If we somehow won 9-0 or even 8-1, we can thumb our noses at that tired old lie forever....

Brown v. Board of Education was unanimous. Would be nice if we had our own Brown v. Board of Education like that!

[hoffmang]

I think there is an outside chance that this could be unanimous for an individual right.

-Gene

[BigDogatPlay]

My thinking is 6-3, or maybe 5-4. Presuming of course that they even grant certiorari.

Majority CJ Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito just about for sure. Kennedy is a good possibility with Ginsburg , the former ACLU lawyer, being a slight possibility for the sixth vote.

Those who doubt Scalia can take note of his remarks a year or two back in a speech where he fondly described riding the subway as a boy, carrying his rifle, to the practice range and wondering why and where society changed it's outlook on firearms so much.

The minority, Stevens and Breyer for sure and probably Souter. Maybe Ginsburg and I honestly believe she is on this side of the vote more than the other.

[hoffmang]

I think we get Souter. He authored United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co. overturning BATF regulation in favor of gun owners and was in the majority for Small in Small v. United States.

-Gene

[dfletcher]

Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens and Souter were of the majority in Small. Thomas, Scalia & Kennedy dissented in this case where Small's assertion that he believed his "no" answer to the 4473 question regarding a conviction in any court applied to American courts only - Small had been convicted of a crime in a Japanese court. The court ruled in favor of Small, a decision written by Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Stevens and Souter. Justices Thomas, Scalia & Kennedy dissented.

The majority opinion emphasised anomalies resulting from a reading of "any court" to include foreign courts. The dissent insisted on a literal interpretation of the word "any" & argued that applying the law to foreign convictions was not irrational enough to rebut the usual meaning of the word "any".

In this case the "liberals" provided relief and the "conservatives" did not. The "strict constructionist" ideology of the conservatives caused them, I believe, to take the approach that "any court" means just that - that the case involved a gun was not considered.

God only knows what these guys focus on as important when deciding a case. Although, with one Justice (Scalia) who goes hunting with the VP and another nicknamed "Machine Gun Sammy" you've got to figure we have a good chance.

[bwiese]

.... Justices Thomas, Scalia & Kennedy dissented.

The majority opinion emphasised anomalies resulting from a reading of "any court" to include foreign courts. The dissent insisted on a literal interpretation of the word "any" & argued that applying the law to foreign convictions was not irrational enough to rebut the usual meaning of the word "any".

God only knows what these guys focus on as important when deciding a case.

We can't always blame the Supremes for poorly-worded laws.

They went by plain language and didn't try to play guessing games.

That approach can only help us now...

[tiki]

I posted my analysis here and a summary on my blog:
http://www.hoffmang.com/archives/000716.html#000716


Gene,
There goes one of your pro 2nd justices. :(

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070730/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_roberts

[hoffmang]

I got the alert via SMS. No brain tumor and a history of a previous episode. All he has to do is live and remain sentient for maximum 18 months.

However, I expect Roberts will be ok and certainly my hopes go out to him.

-Gene

[bulgron]

The New York Times made it clear that this is an aberrant episode. I'm sure Roberts will be around for years to come.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

I can just imagine the most venomous of the liberal left foaming at the mouth themselves in hopes that this takes Roberts down....sickening.

[E Pluribus Unum]

I can just imagine the most venomous of the liberal left foaming at the mouth themselves in hopes that this takes Roberts down....sickening.

If Diane or Barbara had a similar condition would you not be salivating?

[tiki]

If Diane or Barbara had a similar condition would you not be salivating?

What's that Kool and the Gang song? :)

[mblat]

If Diane or Barbara had a similar condition would you not be salivating?

No.... They would be replaced with the people as bad as those two are.

[56Chevy]

No.... They would be replaced with the people as bad as those two are.
The type of person who usually wants to do a job like that is the problem. The people who would be honest and use common sense wouldn't want to do the job. You might be able to get an honest person elected, but if they stay honest they probably won't get elected again. Quite a few people don't care if the person they are electing is honest. They just care about getting "theirs." Remember, 50% of the people are below average. It's the same with being a selfish idiot.:D

[mcubed4130]

No.... They would be replaced with the people as bad as those two are.

Kinda like... Lockyer being replaced by Brown? :D Not all people of the same party are created equal.

However, since we've seen decades worth of migration into California, of anyone who claims to be a progressive or a liberal... I agree - we would certainly replace both of them with another person with a "D" before or after their name.

-M3

[Diabolus]

Check out this article relating to this case:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20039189/site/newsweek/

[tiki]

I'm interested in reading any news stories, commentaries, whatever. So, if anyone sees a story out there please post the link. Thanks.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

If Diane or Barbara had a similar condition would you not be salivating?

No, I wouldn't. Not trying to make it sound like I couldn't wish harm on someone...but it would take more than an opposing political point of view.

Unfortunately, there are more like them than are like me in this State.

[Glock22Fan]

The type of person who usually wants to do a job like that is the problem. The people who would be honest and use common sense wouldn't want to do the job. You might be able to get an honest person elected, but if they stay honest they probably won't get elected again. Quite a few people don't care if the person they are electing is honest. They just care about getting "theirs." Remember, 50% of the people are below average. It's the same with being a selfish idiot.:D

I forget who said this, and I might be miss-phrasing it, but someone famous once said that the only people who deserved to be elected were those who didn't want to be.

[56Chevy]

I forget who said this, and I might be miss-phrasing it, but someone famous once said that the only people who deserved to be elected were those who didn't want to be.
There's another one that says "we get the government we deserve." I would say that it needs to be changed to "the majority gets the government it deserves." I don't deserve the garbage we get. :D

[ldivinag]

i was very surprised who the PARKER in this case was. or how her story came about...

sad story of a citizen in DC...

[Pont]

No.... They would be replaced with the people as bad as those two are.

But it would be a first step. The sheep re-elect incumbents for Congress because the longer a congress critter has been there, the more likely they are to be on the important committees. A replacement for DF and BB would have to face their challengers in actual, non-shoe-in elections.

[mcubed4130]

Is it just me, or shouldn't we be hearing about City of DC - officially filing by now?

Did I miss it?

-M3

[Liberty1]

Did I miss it? :sleeping:

-M3

Yep, SCOTUS rulled on it. You didn't hear?:p

[hoffmang]

M3,

Original date for Cert being due was earlier this week, but Justice Roberts granted DC's request for more time to file about 3 weeks ago. Sadly he ruled before he saw a copy of our side's opposition to the delay.

-Gene

[dfletcher]

M3,

Original date for Cert being due was earlier this week, but Justice Roberts granted DC's request for more time to file about 3 weeks ago. Sadly he ruled before he saw a copy of our side's opposition to the delay.

-Gene

Hopefully the extension is granted so after the fact the court can say "we gave you every opportunity" but you came up short.

[hoffmang]

It was a dumb extension. It was only an extension on the timeline to request review. It takes no real merits discussion at all.

The outline of DC's filing:

1. We lost in the DC Circuit.

2. There is a split amongst the Circuits and internal to our District's courts.

3. It is a matter of importance - strikes existing law, BOR, etc.

Please take our appeal.

Guess DC can't figure out how to start Wordperfect..

-Gene

[CCWFacts]

I assume they are looking for every possible delay so they can get as much legal horsepower involved as they can find? Didn't they bring in some extra super-duper Supreme Court legal team just now? They've had years to prepare for this, but I guess they want to fight as hard a possible.

[Piper]

What sucks is the people of DC are suffering and continue to have their rights suspended while Fenty and his socialists continue to delay. They know they have no leg to stand on, so in true socialist fashion they are prolonging the inevitable. Why am I not surprised?

[E Pluribus Unum]

Did I miss it?

Yeah dude.... where have you been?? I told you the DOJ wouldn't list!