DC appeals Parker case to SCOTUS

[ctdonath]

Another news release (source unknown; referenced by SCOTUSBLOG):

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.

 

[Warbow]

If SCOTUS does decide to hear the case, what's a fair estimate on how long it will be before their ruling?

 

[oldfart]

"The Supreme Court is dominated by Republican appointees... what could go wrong?"

Surely you jest. Consider the qualifications of those Republicans who put them on the bench and things start getting worrisome. Still, even recognizing all the problems a "wrong" decision can cause, I'll be glad to see something definite happen.

 

[Bubbles]

Even if SCOTUS doesn't grant cert it's a win for us since any Federal gun law can be challenged in the DC Circuit.

My guess is that SCOTUS will hear it. Several justices had already expressed interest in drafting a RKBA ruling long before this case was even filed.

 

[Bubbles]

.

 

[jwr_747]

keep in mind,if this gets to the Supreme's,it could go either way.there are no "slam dunks" in a court case. " shall not be infringed" looks straight forward,but look what Bill Clinton did with the word " if ". lots of years back when Judge Bork was up for the Supreme court,and at the time,lots of folks,gun folks included,liked Bork, in an interview was ask about the 2A,wouldn't answer several times,but finally did say that "he wasn't sure that the individual had the right to bear arms".as they say," be careful what you ask for " jwr

 

[USMC - Retired]

I wonder what effect it would have if over a million gun owners marched on DC just prior to the hearing.

 

[Mazeman]

The Supreme Court is dominated by Republican appointees... what could go wrong?

Souter is one of those appointees.

 

[arthurcw]

Also… don’t look for any “blood in the streets” articles from the MSM. There may be a few from Handgun Inc. and Little Sarah One Note. But once the memos go out they will stop.

The MSM will be doing deep “intellectual” pieces on “not being rash”, “judicial restraint”, “weighing all sides of the issue”, and “nuances of the constitution.”

These “news” pieces will all have one common theme; The Justices who vote for the ban will be the wisest most thoughtful Justices that the SCOTUS has ever seen. They will be heralded as the great ones. Why should a community not be allowed to remove those weapons of death. All real enlightened people know that they are just a means of destruction and we, as a society, as beyond that now. And all you Justices what to be seen as enlightened… Don’t you? (Justice Kennedy, are you watching?)

While those who vote for change will be the ones going against tradition, again restraint. They will not get invited to the Inside the Beltway parties. They will not be respected by their peers. They will be thought of as rash and not judicial. They will be opening a wound in the heart of America. (Justice Kennedy, still there?)

MSM: "Repeat after us, 'You are all too wise to make this bad decision.' Right, Justice Kennedy?"

You’ll see more about how this is the “Kennedy Court”. How moderation is the key to a good SCOTUS.

I’m getting ill just thinking about it. All this will be first aimed at SCOTUS not taking the case. If they do take the case, the MSM will step this up into a go for broke stroking of egos that will make the warm fuzzies sent out to San Fran Nan prior to Nov '06 look like out right nuclear attacks on her character.

 

[USMC - Retired]

Douple post, dang slow internet....

 

[JeffKnox]

Yes there is something we can do!
The anti's will be mounting a huge propaganda campaign trying to convince the world (and SCOTUS) that the American people don't support the true interpretation of the Second Amendment.
We need to begin countering that immediately with a strong LTE campaign nationwide. Lots of clear, concise letters with a little solid history and research built in.
I'll be posting suggestions on my blog and try to copy them over here if I have time.

On the question of whether this is good or bad: This is definitely good.
Yes SCOTUS will probably come out with a very narrow decision - Parker is already very narrow and leaves lots of wiggle room - there in no "one fell swoop" here. But at this point we are in a very strong position.
The Court has to decide whether to hear the case - that decision will be very telling - remember that believers in the Second Amendment on the Court don't want to see it go up in flames any more than you and I do so if they don't believe the court will uphold the "individual right" interpretation, they will refuse cert. That will leave the DC Circuit decision standing stronger than it is now. If the smart Justices see that their opinion will prevail, they will support cert. and SCOTUS will hear the case. That will be a very strong indication that the Court is going to come out with a favorable decision - no matter how narrow.
This is a day to celebrate!

Yours for the Second Amendment,
Jeff Knox
www.FirearmsCoalition.org

 

[ArmedBear]

“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.

Funny thing is, few of us disagree that "reasonable regulations" are allowed by the 2nd Amendment.

How many of us would support the right of someone who is dead drunk to wave a loaded gun around on Friday night downtown in the midst of a crowd? We'd expect that the police could arrest him. There are similar restrictions on the First Amendment, too.

The point here is that "reasonable regulations" would be different from the DC laws, because the DC laws are an utter infringement on a constitutional right.

In the same way, a law that prohibits people from speaking in public would not pass muster as a "reasonable regulation" under the First Amendment.

 

[ProguninTN]

Certiorari

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

 

[Titan6]

I am not so sure if media sucking up will carry the day. There are a lot of big name liberal lawyers in recent years who have come out with the same reasoning.

What passes for common knowledge might be another. Wikipedia for example states that the 2A is a collective right. Their stating it does not make it so but the whole collectivist premise has been making inroads in recent years.

 

[ArmedBear]

There are no other "collective rights" in the Constitution, are there?

Again, SCOTUS has NO problem whatsoever with mocking the volumes of contradictory and sometimes too-creative stuff that comes from legal scholarship, if the justices disagree with it.

I also don't think they've ever based their positions on Wikipedia, the NYT editorial page, the WSJ editorial page, or anything else of the sort.

 

[igpoobah]

“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.”

Can a person really be this oblivious? This statement couldn't be any more backwards from reality.

Yes, we are idiots mayor; please protect us from ourselves! Elitist jerk. You look mighty silly wearing your @$$ for a hat.

 

[Titan6]

I also don't think they've ever based their positions on Wikipedia, the NYT editorial page, the WSJ editorial page, or anything else of the sort.

I've read some of them and honestly can't tell.

 

[kermit315]

I wonder what effect it would have if over a million gun owners marched on DC just prior to the hearing.

probably have every politician and Secret Service agent collectively filling their underwear at the same time.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

My bet--they won't touch it.

 

[ctdonath]

.

 

[ArmedBear]

Neo-Luddite-

I think the same thing.

By doing that, they'll say that yes, the DC ban specifically is truly an "infringement", but avoid making a more sweeping ruling either way.

On the other hand, the Circuits disagree on a basic issue of Constitutional interpretation. SCOTUS often DOES hear cases when that's true.

 

[glockman19]

YES,YES, YES...Hopefully we get a decision before the next election. I'm optimistic that teh "Individual Right" will be upheld.

Now I'm in CA how will this effect me? Will the AW & .50 BMG be unconstitutional?

 

[fletcher]

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

Yep. All we can do for the time being.

 

[K-Romulus]

Update:

Mayor Fenty is supposed to be on the Kojo Nmamdi show at 1pm TODAY to talk about the appeal, scheduled for 15min. in length.

http://www.wamu.org/programs/kn/07/07/16.php#16565

13:06 D.C. Gun Ban

It was one of the toughest gun bans in the nation -- until it was struck down by an appeals court earlier this year. Now, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty has made his decision about whether to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court or go back to the drawing board. We'll talk with Fenty and assess the implications for public safety in D.C. and beyond.
Guests

Adrian Fenty, Mayor, District of Columbia

 

[GunTech]

The SCOTUS has been vbary evasive on 2nd Ammedment ruling. My bet is they will decline to hear the case, same as the machinegun ban ruling.

Why do they care about public opinion? They are appointed for life. More presidents have been impeached than Federal judges.