PDA

View Full Version : DC files for cert. in Heller


EastBayRidge
09-04-2007, 9:21 AM
More on SCOTUSBLOG (http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/09/_second_amendme.html) here.

AJAX22
09-04-2007, 9:37 AM
Does anyone have a link to the actual text of the Cert filing?

From the quotes on the link already posted, it sounds like they may have handed this to us on a silver platter.

Prc329
09-04-2007, 9:38 AM
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/DC_Final_Petition.pdf

Is that what you are looking for?

SemiAutoSam
09-04-2007, 9:59 AM
For those that dont know what the term "CERTIORARI" means. I knew it was Latin but did not know the definition.



http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c024.htm

CERTIORARI - Lat. 'To be informed of.' Refers to the order a court issues so that it can review the decision and proceedings in a lower court and determine whether there were any irregularities. When such an order is made it is said that the court has granted certiorari. Also called 'Cert.'

An order issued by the Supreme Court directing the lower court to transmit records for a case for which it will hear on appeal. Certiorari is the general method most cases make their way to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court since it has specific jurisdiction over a very limited range of disputes.

To be certified of; to be informed of. This is the name of a writ issued from a superior court directed to one of inferior jurisdiction, commanding the latter to certify and return to the former the record in the particular case. A certiorari differs from a writ of error. There is a distinction also between a habeus corpus and a certiorari. The certiorari removes the cause; habeus corpus only supersedes the proceedings below.

By the common law a supreme court has power to review the proceedings of all inferior tribunals and to pass upon their jurisdiction and decisions on questions of law. But in general the determination of such inferior courts on questions of fact are conclusive and cannot be reversed on certiorari unless some statute confers the power on such supreme court. When any error has occurred in the proceedings of the court below different from the course of the common law, in any stage of the cause, either civil or criminal cases, the writ of certiorari is the only remedy to correct such error, unless some other statutory remedy has been given. A certiorari, for example, is the correct process to remove the proceedings of a court of sessions or of county commissioners in laying out highways.

Sometimes the writ of certiorari is used as auxiliary process in order to obtain a full return to some other process. When, for example, the record of an inferior court is brought before a superior court by appeal, writ of error, or other lawful mode, and there is a manifest defect, or a suggestion of diminution, a certiorari is awarded requiring a perfect transcript and all papers.

EastBayRidge
09-04-2007, 10:02 AM
"Does anyone have a link to the actual text of the Cert filing?"

Links embedded in the text @ SCOTUS BLOG.

tombinghamthegreat
09-04-2007, 10:05 AM
It is finally going to court. I hope this Bush appointed Conservative Supreme Court defends the second amendment.

Librarian
09-04-2007, 10:08 AM
Here's something I just saw, in the appendices. Appearing/writing for the appellees (D.C.) Andrew L. Frey, David M. Gossett, Danny Y. Chou,
Deputy City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney of the
City and County of San Francisco, and John A. Valentine,
were on the brief for amici curiae.Why am I not surprised?

nhanson
09-04-2007, 10:16 AM
Boy! these guy's are referencing the kitchen sink. In scanning through the brief they are picking excepts out of context to try and make their case. Without the total picture, the excerpts seem pretty week and the district court ruling had historical fact in sufficient detail that this DC brief is based on "emotion". I know, what's new?

They can't even get the context/timing of the creation of the 2nd amendment to the initial Militia act and the revised militia act right. They also seem to be drawing from the revised militia act (limited excerpts), loosing the original intent and missing the requirement for the individuals to supply their own arms for the militia.

If SCOTUS hears this, it should be interesting and if reviewed on objective fact; the decision should be clear in affirming the district court ruling. I guess we will have to see how "objective" our SCOTUS is.

Enjoy

SemiAutoSam
09-04-2007, 10:21 AM
Correct me if I appear to be wrong but in reading the case the DC Gov is saying we have this law because our law abiding citizens are being killed by criminals with handguns there fore we want to outlaw handguns ?

gose
09-04-2007, 10:41 AM
"Other countries like Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Luxembourg, New Zealand, and Sweden similarly ban handguns or grant permits in only exceptional cases."

I think they need to do their homework...

CCWFacts
09-04-2007, 10:45 AM
"Other countries like Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Luxembourg, New Zealand, and Sweden similarly ban handguns or grant permits in only exceptional cases."

I think they need to do their homework...

Sloppy "facts", it's what we should expect. They should have listed Russia, Jamaica, and Nigeria as countries that have near-total bans on handguns.

gose
09-04-2007, 11:15 AM
Sloppy "facts", it's what we should expect. They should have listed Russia, Jamaica, and Nigeria as countries that have near-total bans on handguns.

Yeah, seeing that shooting is pretty big in Denmark and Sweden and even if there are some hoops to go through, it's nothing exceptional about getting a permit. Finland is one of the most gun liberal countries in Europe. Strange that they failed to mention that, or the fact that silencers are cash-and-carry items there. :)

Let's hope that everything else in there is as bad ;)

dfletcher
09-04-2007, 12:00 PM
I did a fairly quick read through (have to do a bit of work while I'm at my desk) but it appears DC is almost daring SCOTUS to go the full incorporation route regarding the 2nd as well as challenging them to include military weapons by referencing Miller. Of course they realize that (Miller) & make mention of weapons being allowed while serving in an organized militia.

I don't think all the "handguns are dangerous" and urban problems will get very far. That's like saying free speech should be curtailed because some folks swear in public and some folks are offended becouse others swear in public..

Slight concern is their assertion that allowing rifles & shotguns gives them an out. Depends on what the interpretation of "infringe" is.

Overall not too impressed.

Glock22Fan
09-04-2007, 12:23 PM
Gee, they had to introduce this legislation to curb the then tremendous problem with handgun violence.

Should it be upheld because it works?

PanzerAce
09-04-2007, 12:25 PM
Wait, what is Heller? for some reason I thought this was about Parker.....*confused*

cadurand
09-04-2007, 12:35 PM
If the Supreme Court were to actually rule in gun owner's favor that would be a dream come true.

I think the lawmakers in this state would start calling for California to leave the Union within minutes of the ruling.

I thought this was the Parker case too though. What is Heller?

I've heard several legal analyst types say that there is a good chance the Supreme court rules on the side of gun owners in the Parker case. I hope they are right.

bulgron
09-04-2007, 12:36 PM
Wait, what is Heller? for some reason I thought this was about Parker.....*confused*

The case has been renamed. Heller is the only original complaintant found to have standing, so now the case is D.C v. Heller.

PanzerAce
09-04-2007, 1:32 PM
The case has been renamed. Heller is the only original complaintant found to have standing, so now the case is D.C v. Heller.
Ok, cool

carsonwales
09-05-2007, 12:48 PM
I just read through the entire debate at the Federalist Society website on the Parker case.

There were a few things that jumped out at me:

1) If the SCOTUS were to accept DC's argument, then they would have to also support the notion that the BOR is an enumeration of collective rights, and not individual rights. I seriously doubt this court wants to be the court that sets a precedent and method to attack the First and Fourth.

2) Similarly, and or otherwise, to deny Parker, SCOTUS would need to somehow read into the BOR that the Second, and only the Second stands out as a Right among the Initial 10, enumerated for the purpose of and benefit of the State, where as the remaining 10 are for the People.

It would seem impossible for SCOTUS to rule in anything but our favor. To do so otherwise would open the door for 'collectivists' to begin attacking the remaining rights, and would be setting a precedent that the oringal BOR was something other than a specific enumeration of protection of the rights of the 'people'.

I can't wait for this to come before the court.

bulgron
09-05-2007, 12:55 PM
It would seem impossible for SCOTUS to rule in anything but our favor. To do so otherwise would open the door for 'collectivists' to begin attacking the remaining rights, and would be setting a precedent that the oringal BOR was something other than a specific enumeration of protection of the rights of the 'people'.

Yes. As goes the 2nd, so goes our entire Bill of Rights.

The only reason why the collectivists have gotten away with their arguments is that SCOTUS has not had the courage to take up the case. Hopefully this court is in possession of a little more backbone than those who have come before them.

elenius
09-05-2007, 2:41 PM
They could rule that the 2nd protects an individual right, but only to weapons "suitable for militia duty". This would be in line with Miller, I think.

I hope they don't. Every militiaman needs a sidearm :D

SemiAutoSam
09-05-2007, 3:13 PM
If this were the case that would seem to mean that the ZUMBOS of the US would be denied their RTKBA and we would keep our black rifles.

does anyone else see it this way ?

They could rule that the 2nd protects an individual right, but only to weapons "suitable for militia duty". This would be in line with Miller, I think.

I hope they don't. Every militiaman needs a sidearm :D

tiki
09-05-2007, 3:26 PM
If this were the case that would seem to mean that the ZUMBOS of the US would be denied their RTKBA and we would keep our black rifles.

does anyone else see it this way ?

Go buy your sidearm. :)
I bought mine.

WokMaster1
09-05-2007, 3:28 PM
The case has been renamed. Heller is the only original complaintant found to have standing, so now the case is D.C v. Heller.

Not to mention Heller exciting. Heller good!:D

carsonwales
09-05-2007, 3:28 PM
If this were the case that would seem to mean that the ZUMBOS of the US would be denied their RTKBA and we would keep our black rifles.

does anyone else see it this way ?

If decided strictly I suppose from a collectivists view...but even hunting shotguns and rifles and rim fires can be pressed into service if needed.

I am curious if this might open up the door for some way we can own full auto again, provided we train with the 'militia' once a year or something.

I would gladly train one or two weekends a year to then be qualified to own full auto stuff again.

I think this will boil down to the independent clause of the Second...

CCWFacts
09-05-2007, 3:34 PM
If this were the case that would seem to mean that the ZUMBOS of the US would be denied their RTKBA and we would keep our black rifles.

That really seems to be the most conservative, narrow interpretation of the 2A. If the 2A is concerned with "militia" type activities then pure hunting arms aren't necessarily covered. The most protected weapon might be the M4, and a M9 to go with it. A bolt-action hunting rifle or a over-under? Forget it.

But the Parker decision talks about a broad civic purpose, which would include not just militia activities, but private self-defense (which necessitates concealment-friendly guns and shotguns), and shooting activities (sports, hunting).

I personally like this broad "civic purpose" idea, because, while hunting and militia use are different activities, they do go together in the idea of developing a shooting community, shooting skills, industry, and suppliers.

I hope that the 2A covers more than just narrow "militia" type arms.

elenius
09-05-2007, 3:48 PM
I would gladly train one or two weekends a year to then be qualified to own full auto stuff again.

Me too, but we shouldn't have to -- as I understand it, every adult (male) was considered part of the militia at the time this stuff was written.

This WAS how they reasoned in Miller, right? IIRC, they said you can't have a sawed-off shotgun because it is not suitable for militia duty. (I don't think the defendant trained in a militia).

This sort of implies that we should be allowed to have anything that IS suitable for militia duty. Any light infantry weapons should be ok, from M16s to portable anti-tank weapons. I would be fine if they drew the line at Stinger missiles :)

dustoff31
09-05-2007, 4:06 PM
[QUOTE=elenius;740021]This WAS how they reasoned in Miller, right? IIRC, they said you can't have a sawed-off shotgun because it is not suitable for militia duty. (I don't think the defendant trained in a militia).

What they actually said was sawed-off shotguns were unsuitable because they were "not in common military use". Every military on earth issues all sorts of rifles and pistols.

And be careful what you wish for in regard to the militia angle. If that happens, what are you going to do when your militia commander, the one appointed by the state, says you will not carry weapons. The way California does now.

And CarsonWales, under existing federal law one can now own automatic weapons.

elenius
09-05-2007, 4:21 PM
[QUOTE=elenius;740021]This WAS how they reasoned in Miller, right? IIRC, they said you can't have a sawed-off shotgun because it is not suitable for militia duty. (I don't think the defendant trained in a militia).

What they actually said was sawed-off shotguns were unsuitable because they were "not in common military use". Every military on earth issues all sorts of rifles and pistols.

And be careful what you wish for in regard to the militia angle. If that happens, what are you going to do when your militia commander, the one appointed by the state, says you will not carry weapons. The way California does now.

And CarsonWales, under existing federal law one can now own automatic weapons.

I didn't "wish for" this. I brought it up as one possibility on how they *might* rule.

Piper
09-05-2007, 4:24 PM
Best case scenario, if everything works out, I'm waiting for the (B)arbara (S)triesand types to threaten to leave the country like they did when Dubya got elected. The only problem then was they didn't leave, or stay gone.

dustoff31
09-05-2007, 5:03 PM
Best case scenario, if everything works out, I'm waiting for the (B)arbara (S)triesand types to threaten to leave the country like they did when Dubya got elected. The only problem then was they didn't leave, or stay gone.

Yeah isn't it great how these slugs go to another country and tell everyone how great it is there and how much American stinks. But they always seem to do that, and then come back to this country.

bulgron
09-05-2007, 6:08 PM
What they actually said was sawed-off shotguns were unsuitable because they were "not in common military use". Every military on earth issues all sorts of rifles and pistols.


Actually, what Miller said was, "we don't know if a sawed-off shotgun is suitable for militia use, so we remand the case to the lower courts to find out."

The implication being that if an arm is suitable for militia use, then it is protected.

WWII taught us that just about any firearm is suitable for use by soldiers in a battlefield. The lower courts noticed this, so they proceeded to twist the meaning of Miller every which way so as to avoid ever applying the Miller test to any weapon.

Miller is nothing to be afraid of, I think, assuming that our side is always represent by honest and well-prepared people (which we were not, btw, when Miller was originally heard).

otteray
09-05-2007, 7:55 PM
I thought that the NRA was now supporting this along with the original attorney representing Heller.
Hopefully, that's true.
Have the other big groups like GOA offering support?
Or smaller state groups like CRPA, GOC and other state's similar organizations?
This could be an opportunity for major pro- 2nd Amendment groups to lend a helping hand as needed for legal arguments or historical evidence and facts.
Is there a down side for such cooperation?

Piper
09-05-2007, 8:18 PM
Isn't it ironic that our modern day gun laws have evolved over a century from laws that forbid people of african descent from possessing firearms, and now two (New Orleans and Washington D.C.) of the most prominent lawsuits involving the second amendment are as a result of draconian restrictions, bans and confiscations dictated by mayors of african descent.

Liberty1
09-05-2007, 8:26 PM
I hope that the 2A covers more than just narrow "militia" type arms.

Ya, I'd like to joint the Burbank Volunteer Air Mobile Cav, or the San Francisco Light Artillery!

Librarian
09-07-2007, 4:12 PM
here (http://www.dcguncase.com/blog/)
September 6th, 2007 by Alan Gura

Welcome to our blogsite!

We’ve established this website to better inform and communicate with the public about our case, Parker v. District of Columbia, challenging the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.’s various gun bans.

Please feel free to look around. On our “case filings” page, you will find a comprehensive set of all the notable pleadings in the case — from our side, our adversaries, and the amici for both sides — as well as all the relevant court orders and opinions. Our “Frequently Asked Questions” page should answer most of the basic questions we get about our case. We’re collecting a set of useful articles and other documents under “Articles and Testimony” page. And of course this blog will also contain news updates, insights, and other commentary about this historic case. Our website will always be a work in progress, and we may add other features as events unfold.

Thanks again for stopping by. We hope you find this website useful.

– The Parker Team

gazzavc
09-07-2007, 11:26 PM
Ya, I'd like to joint the Burbank Volunteer Air Mobile Cav, or the San Francisco Light Artillery!

Hell, we just become the 7th Calabasas Cavalry...............:)