DC gets delay to file gun appeal

[aileron]

Don't think anyone has posted this update we all knew was coming.

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/07/gun_owners_urge_1.html


Wednesday, July 18, 2007
UPDATE: City gets delay to file gun appeal

Posted by Lyle Denniston at 10:25 PM

UPDATE Thursday a.m.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., on Wednesday gave the District of Columbia government an extension of time until Sept. 5 to file its appeal challenging an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment by the D.C. Circuit Court. The opposition to the request for an extension was not received at the Court, at least not before the Chief Justice acted, it is understood.

Washington, D.C., residents who oppose the city's strict handgun control law urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday to move along, without delay, the city government's appeal of a federal appeals court striking down that law under the Second Amendment. Invoking the half-century old admonitions of the late Justice Felix Frankfurter, the local citizens told the Court that it should not be difficult for city lawyers to promptly prepare their petition for review. The document can be found here.

The challengers to the local law told the Court that they"look forward" to supporting Supreme Court review of the case, but argued that the city's appeal papers should be filed, as now scheduled, "no later than Aug. 6."

The city on Monday asked Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., for a 30-day extension of the time to file the city's petition in the case of District of Columbia, et al., v. Heller, et al. (extension application 07A51). The city argued that it had taken on additional attorneys who needed to become familiar with the issues, and that city officials had only recently decide actually to appeal the case.

Quoting a 1957 order of the Court (Brody v. U.S.), the local gun owners said Justice Frankfurter had remarked: "I cannot emphasize too strongly that petitions for certiorari all too frequently misconceive the true nature of such petitions -- the considerations governing review on certiorari -- and the manner of presenting them. It does not require heavy research to charge the understanding of this Court adequately on the gravity of the issue on which review is sought and to prove to the Court the appropriateness of granting a petition for writ of certiorari."

In their filing, the local residents said that the city had stretched out the time for considering the case in lower courts, and argued that the city has had "five months to ponder an unopposed certiorari petition on a single question of law." That, they said, "should sufficient....Petitioners should conform their litigation plans to the Court's rules, and not the other way around."

[6172crew]

Nail biter for sure, hope they dont change their minds.

[xenophobe]

Personally I think this is more than a sign of incompetence and laziness on behalf of the District of Columbia.

A request for cert is nothing more than a simple document several pages long compromising mostly of typical legal header/footer formatting with only a paragraph or two of substantial text that any legal aide could prepare on a slow day.

[AJAX22]

So the 64$ question is 'will they be granted cert?'

[bg]

One of our enemies is worried about it, that's for sure..>
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/07/gun_control_adv.html

GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES ROLL THE DICE (STUPIDLY!) ON LIKELY LANDMARK ‘RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS’ SECOND AMENDMENT CASE

By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento

The District of Columbia, marred by gun murders, passed a local ordinance banning the private possession of handguns.

The NRA et. al. filed lawsuits saying the government did not have the right to do so because of the prohibition of the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution which establishes the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Back in the 1930’s, the US Supreme Court opinioned that the “right to keep and bear arms” was a right held by State Militias and not individual citizens. For the last 80 years, guns zealots have argued that the Court’s interpretation was wrong – that the Founder’s intent was to protect the gun in each American’s home.

For better or worse, however, gun zealots don’t determine the Constitution’s meaning. The US Supreme Court does.

The appeal of the DC gun ban, however, looks likely to renew the debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment. Gun control advocates had urged DC not to appeal their loss in the Appellate Court (which ruled that the Second Amendment did indeed protect the registered gun in your home – that the 1930 opinion was wrong or misconstrued) in order to avoid having the US Supreme Court ratify the appellate decision.

But the gun control attorneys failed. DC will appeal. And now the US Supreme Court will likely answer the question of whether or not the Second Amendment protects the right of the person to keep a registered (as that was the relief sought – to acquire and possess registered conventional guns) gun in the home from the actions of Government.
When he gets concerned about things, I end up having a feel-good day..