PDA

View Full Version : DC Circuit denies appeal of stay of mandate


hoffmang
09-25-2007, 6:20 PM
The DC Circuit court denied the stay of mandate on the very narrow grounds that the plaintiffs who did challenge the functional long gun ban were deemed not to have standing. However, the court goes on to note that DC was a bit disengenious in its framing of the question to the Supreme Court.

Gura's post is here: http://dcguncase.com/blog/2007/09/25/dc-circuits-order-on-motion-to-lift-stay-of-mandate/

DC Circuit's decision is here: http://dcguncase.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/dc-circuit-order-denying-motion-to-lift-stay.pdf

Everyone should read the decision.

Gura and Levy have appealed the standing decision and thus the long arm ban will likely be in front of the Supremes whether DC wants it there or not.

-Gene

E Pluribus Unum
09-25-2007, 6:33 PM
So... as I read it:

The good guys in the Parker vs. DC case petitioned the DC court to remove the stay of mandate, which postpones the order the court made in Parker vs. DC... because DC conceeded that the law concerning long guns was unconstitutional in their brief to the SCOTUS regarding hand guns?

Am I correct?

dfletcher
09-25-2007, 6:42 PM
I guess we'll have to wait for some poor DC gun owner to get shot up while assembling his shotgun in time to defend himself from an intruder. I guess if he's injured sufficiently to be in a wheel chair that would be best - he could actually get standing while sitting..........

EastBayRidge
09-25-2007, 6:51 PM
Boy oh boy, the DC Circuit is just putting up the neon billboard signs marked "decision this way" for the SC, isn't it ?

E Pluribus Unum
09-25-2007, 6:55 PM
I guess we'll have to wait for some poor DC gun owner to get shot up while assembling his shotgun in time to defend himself from an intruder. I guess if he's injured sufficiently to be in a wheel chair that would be best - he could actually get standing while sitting..........

Not always....

It could be a DC shotgun owner who already had his shotgun assembled... shot the intruder... and then faced charges as a result.

dfletcher
09-25-2007, 7:09 PM
Not always....

It could be a DC shotgun owner who already had his shotgun assembled... shot the intruder... and then faced charges as a result.


Good point - hadn't thought of that angle.

hoffmang
09-25-2007, 7:31 PM
So... as I read it:

The good guys in the Parker vs. DC case petitioned the DC court to remove the stay of mandate, which postpones the order the court made in Parker vs. DC... because DC conceeded that the law concerning long guns was unconstitutional in their brief to the SCOTUS regarding hand guns?

Am I correct?

Our side petitioned saying DC abandoned the "long gun's must be bound up or disassembled ban." Court's response was, cute but sadly the plaintiffs who complained of that didn't have standing. Gotta deny you, but you're basically correct that DC is acting too big for its britches. Hey Supremes - these DC City guys are not to be trusted.

-Gene

Librarian
09-25-2007, 10:04 PM
DC Circuit denies stay of mandate
Shouldn't the thread title be something like
DC Circuit denies removal of stay of mandate
or
DC Circuit maintains stay of mandate ?

The mandate is 'DC, do this'

The stay is 'Well, you can wait until the Supremes decide'

Gura wanted to lift the stay against part of the mandate; DC court said they would not do that, whole mandate remains stayed.

FreedomIsNotFree
09-25-2007, 10:15 PM
In addition to what has been said already, I believe this ruling pigeon holes the DC attorney's when it comes to riles/shotguns. That even if they win in SCOTUS, because they narrowed the questions before the court, and the ban on handguns holds up, the current laws requiring the rifle/shotgun be inoperable MUST be declared unconstitutional.

At the very least, DC residents will end up with the ability to have fully operational rifles/shotguns in their homes.

Just my take...

hoffmang
09-25-2007, 10:31 PM
Shouldn't the thread title be something like
DC Circuit denies removal of stay of mandate
or
DC Circuit maintains stay of mandate ?

The mandate is 'DC, do this'

The stay is 'Well, you can wait until the Supremes decide'

Gura wanted to lift the stay against part of the mandate; DC court said they would not do that, whole mandate remains stayed.

Good catch! I've repaired it and am commenting here so that it didn't go down the memory hole...

-Gene

dfletcher
09-25-2007, 10:33 PM
I was going to post that I'd like SCOTUS to go all the way and define what constitutes an infringement, hopefully deciding that any impediment constitutes an infringement - looked online for dictionary.com. Interesting that they use this as a definition:

Main Entry: in·fringe
Pronunciation: in-'frinj
Function: verb
Inflected Forms: in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- in + frangere to break
transitive verb : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed —U.S. Constitution amendment II>; especially : to violate a holder's rights under (a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade name) intransitive verb : ENCROACH —in·fring·er noun

Liberty1
09-26-2007, 3:40 PM
http://www.dcguncase.com/blog/

D.C. Circuit’s Order on Motion to Lift Stay of Mandate
September 25th, 2007 by Clark Neily

"The D.C. Circuit has denied our motion to lift the stay of its mandate. But in doing so, the court made some interesting observations* about the self-defense exception that D.C. now claims exists in the spirit, though not the text, of D.C. Code § 7-2507.02, which requires even lawfully owned firearms to be unloaded and either disassembled or trigger-locked at all times. Of particular interest are the court’s observations about the dangers posed by a rifle’s range and the pellet spread of a shotgun, as well as the difficulty of “handling such long weapons in enclosed spaces — particularly by smaller individuals.” Those points obviously go to the reasonableness of allowing people to defend themselves with, say, a high-velocity hunting rifle that can put a round through an entire apartment building, but forbidding them from using a pistol that is actually designed for use in close quarters and presents much less risk to innocent bystanders."

* http://dcguncase.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/dc-circuit-order-denying-motion-to-lift-stay.pdf

3 The District of Columbia Council never contemplated the specific use of a rifle or shotgun in that situation. Had the Council contemplated such, it would, perforce, have had to consider the danger posed by a rifle’s range and a shotgun’s pellet spread, as well as the difficulty one would have handling such long weapons in enclosed spaces particularly by smaller individuals. Appellees’ brief at 17 did suggest that any gun (including a pre-1976 legal handgun) might be used in self defense in a “true emergency,” otherwise described as “genuine imminent danger.” But the Code does not allow for such, nor did the District ever specify how one would define the circumstances under which one could assemble or unlock a rifle or shotgun to face a “true emergency” (professionals might well be amused at such a hypothetical). The truth is that neither the Code nor the District, in this litigation, ever suggested that a rifle or shotgun, as opposed to a handgun, could be legally employed in self defense.