DC appeals Parker case to SCOTUS

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...

Cowardice is a ruling...
 
If they leave the ruling stand, the citizens of DC (and maybe Chicago) may at least again be able to have some avenue for lawfully owning a pistol. They might have onerous registration to contend with, and it won't be the 'big win' we want from SCOTUS (that we won't get in any case), but the momentum will keep moving in the right direction.
 
I know its impossible to predict supreme court rulings, but what do you think the split will be on this one? I hope this is the victory we hope for, but I fear that a large portion of the US is turning into a nation of sheep.
 
Mayor Fenty. ""Our handgun law has saved countless lives -- keeping
guns out of the hands of those who would hurt others or themselves.""

Being delusional and out-of-touch with reality must be one of the
critera for holding office in the District of Columbia.

""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.

Tennessee Supreme Court and state attorney general opinions all agree that
the principle of regulating arms with a view to prevent crime does not mean
banning arms from all common uses--defense of home, family and livestock,
hunting, recreation or any other lawful uses. The Washington DC ban is a
prime example of an UNREASONABLE law that fails this test.
 
In case anyone missed it at the end of the last page:

Update:
Mayor Fenty is supposed to be on the Kojo Nnamdi 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

Quote:
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
Click to expand...
 
D.C. Mayor is on the radio right now...

Quote: "Banning handguns lowered crime!!!"

My ears are bleeding!!!
:fire::banghead:
 
D.C. Mayor is a Liar

I'm listening to him right now...
To Quote:

"For every defensive use of a handgun at home, there are 3 times as many homicides, suicides, etc."

:banghead::banghead::banghead:
 
Well, this is an opportunity, then.

Dust off those numbers.

When people make claims about facts, and they're wrong, they're easy to refute. He just made it easier, actually.

...especially since DC is demonstrably more dangerous than all the cities around it, despite huge law enforcement presence...

Furthermore, that has little to do with the constitutionality of the law.
 
is DC (or other states) subject to the amendments?
Click to expand...

Yes, via Section 1 of Amendment XIV:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...
 
"For every defensive use of a handgun at home, there are 3 times as many homicides, suicides, etc."
Click to expand...

He just means in DC where handguns are banned by law abiding people. Everywhere else the opposite is true.
 
If SCOTUS were to take the case (which I doubt) they will surely be careful to skirt the issue in such a manner that they do not stomp on the States Rights....IE I DOUBT that they will rule that RKBA is a COLLECTIVE right because many State Constitutions explicitly state that the RKBA is an INDIVIDUAL right.

With that in mind I find it very hard to believe that SCOTUS would take the case and reverse it.....hence it is most likely that they will take it and rule VERY NARROWLY and affirm Parker or even safer choose not to hear the case and allow the decision to stand as is. More than likely we will see an end result that affirm Individual RKBA subject to Regulation.

Question to you lawyers....what are the chances that the DC Circuit Judges conferred in any way/shape/form with the Justices that sit on SCOTUS prior to ruling for Parker?
 
Is it possible that SCOTUS could TAKE the case and do nothing more than rule that DC's law was too restrictive and say nothing about the Collective/Ind Right issue?
 
Hmmm...

That would be difficult.

If they rule that DC has to have a militia, and everyone has a right to join, and to keep their militia weapon(s), that's a pretty significant ruling. That's a whole other possible tangent. I think it's unlikely, and furthermore, it's an extension of the individual right. Note that a militia is not the National Guard, but a local unit that isn't activated in foreign wars, or paid a salary. This is a simple outgrowth of the "collective rights" theory, actually, and one that its proponents probably haven't really thought through when inventing their "theory."

And if they simply rule that the laws are too restrictive, it would imply the individual right, mentioned or not.

On the other hand, with SCOTUS, all manner of strange things are possible.
 
Here's a fun thought. If SCOTUS does Cert and decides 2A as an individual right, then the ACLU will have to defend gun rights. Something they have not done because they believe 2A to be collective right.

K
 
Should Congress or the Courts Decide D.C. Gun Ban's Fate?

by Robert A. Levy

Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies and served as co-counsel to the plaintiffs in Parker v. District of Columbia.

Could the National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress be undermining the best pro-gun case ever likely to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court?

More than four years ago, three attorneys and I filed Parker v. District of Columbia, a Second Amendment case on behalf of six local residents who want to defend themselves in their own homes.

For reasons that remain unclear, we faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation. Happily, the case survived. On March 9, in a blockbuster opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned the city's gun ban — holding that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms."

Parker is the first federal appellate decision to invalidate a gun control statute on Second Amendment grounds. Federal circuit courts covering 47 states have held that there's no recourse under the Second Amendment when state and local gun regulations are challenged. That means Parker could be headed to the Supreme Court.

Enter Congress and the NRA. First, Reps. Mike Ross, D-Ark., and Mark Souder, R-Ind., introduced the D.C. Personal Protection Act. Then, on March 28, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, followed suit in the Senate. Both bills, pushed hard by the NRA, would repeal the D.C. gun ban.

Ordinarily, that might be a good thing. But passage of the bills would kill the Parker litigation. It isn't possible to challenge a law that has been repealed. Yet, Sen. Hutchison claims in her press release that she favors "both a legislative and judicial remedy. I hope the Parker case goes before the Supreme Court and that the court asserts that the right to bear arms is an individual, and not a collective, right. ..."

Incredible.

When asked to clarify the NRA's position, CEO Wayne LaPierre told us in a private meeting, "You can take it to the bank. The NRA will not do anything to prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing Parker."

Maybe so, but actions speak louder than words. The NRA's aggressive promotion of the D.C. Personal Protection Act is baffling at best.

Parker is a much better vehicle to vindicate Second Amendment rights than an act of Congress. First, legislative repeal of the D.C. gun ban will not stop criminal defense attorneys and Public Defenders from citing the Second Amendment when they challenge "felon in possession" charges. Thus, if Parker is derailed, the next Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court could feature a murderer or drug dealer instead of six law-abiding citizens.

Second, a bill aimed at D.C. does only part of the job. It could be repealed by a more liberal Congress. And it will have no effect on state law outside of D.C. In effect, those who support the D.C. Personal Protection Act will be opposing an unambiguous Supreme Court proclamation on the Second Amendment, applicable across the nation.

Third, the Supreme Court is more conservative today than it's been for some time, and probably more conservative than it's going to be. In the unlikely event that five current justices decide to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by upholding a total ban on handguns, that would be the time for Congress to act. Until then, the D.C. Personal Protection Act is premature and counter-productive.

Meanwhile, if Congress wants to help, there are positive things it can do. D.C. has no federal firearms licensees. And handguns, unlike rifles and shotguns, can't be purchased out of state. So even if Parker wins, D.C. residents could not buy a handgun.

Congress should allow interstate handgun sales as long as they comply with the law in both states. And Congress should change how D.C. processes gun registrations. The city requires multiple pictures, fingerprints, and on and on. The process can take months. Congress can mandate that D.C. officials accept the National Instant Check System used everywhere else.

My colleagues and I have drafted alternative legislation — now in the hands of selected senators —that accomplishes those objectives and more, without extinguishing the Parker suit.

Finally, the NRA has suggested that the D.C. Personal Protection Act is "must" legislation. But the D.C. handgun ban was enacted 31 years ago. Why is it only now that legislation must be passed — especially when the effect of that legislation will be to kill the best chance ever for the Supreme Court to affirm that the Second Amendment means what it says?

This article appeared in the Washington Examiner on April 3, 2007.
Click to expand...

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8169
 
News Release

July 16, 2007

Media Contact: (202) 789-5200

Mayor Fenty to Seek Supreme Court Review of Court Decision Striking Down D.C. Gun Ban
Parker v. District of Columbia could be first time the Court has examined 2nd Amendment issues in nearly 70 years

WASHINGTON -- Mayor Adrian Fenty announced today that he will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a 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. The Supreme Court has never definitively ruled on the Second Amendment, making the constitutionality of gun ownership among the most important unresolved questions in all of constitutional law.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Courts and legal scholars are sharply divided over the meaning of that language and whether it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms or merely a "collective" right of the states to arm their own citizen militias. 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. In the only prior case, U.S. v. Miller (1939), the Court did not provide a definitive interpretation of the Second Amendment.

"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 Institute senior fellow Robert Levy.

Parker was brought by six Washington, D.C. residents who wish to have guns in their homes for self protection. District laws, however, impose a total ban on the possession of functional firearms within the home. (Residents may register shotguns and rifles, but they must be kept unloaded and either disassembled or trigger-locked—and there is no exception for self-defense.)

"As a practical matter, gun laws like those in the District of Columbia are abysmal failures wherever they are in place, in the United States as well as abroad," said Roger Pilon, vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute. "They disarm law-abiding citizens while criminals ignore them with impunity. It is thus no accident that Washington is often called the murder capitol of the nation."

Concludes Pilon: "With Mayor Fenty's decision today, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity at last to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, or instead protects only the right of members of the militia to keep and bear arms, as gun-control advocates argue."

While the Supreme Court only accepts a small percentage of the appeals it receives each year, leading court-watchers consider the Parker case a strong candidate for Supreme Court review.
Click to expand...

http://www.cato.org/new/pressrelease.php?id=108
 
A Victory for Self-Defense

by Robert A. Levy

Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies and served as co-counsel to the plaintiffs in Parker v. District of Columbia.

Unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise, it looks as though the District of Columbia's 31-year-old gun ban is history. Good riddance.

In a landmark opinion Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed a lower federal court on all counts and concluded that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms."

The case, Parker v. District of Columbia, was brought by six D.C. residents who want to possess functional firearms within their homes for self-defense. Their lawsuit was not about machine guns and assault weapons. They didn't ask for the right to carry guns outside their houses. Parker was about ordinary handguns, in the owner's private residence.

Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a recent Bush appointee. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented. The court majority stated unequivocally that activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

Indeed, said the court, "the right to arms existed prior to the formation of the new government" in 1789.

Fast-forward more than two centuries. Shelly Parker lived in a high-crime neighborhood in the heart of Washington. People on her block were harassed relentlessly by drug dealers and addicts. Parker called the police, time and again, then encouraged her neighbors to do the same. She organized block meetings to discuss the problem. For her audacity, Parker was labeled a troublemaker by the dealers, who threatened her at every opportunity.

One dealer tried to pry his way into her house, repeatedly cursing, then yelling, "I'll kill you. I live on this block too!"

For obvious reasons, Shelly Parker would like to possess a functional handgun within her home for self-defense; but she feared arrest and prosecution because of the District's unconstitutional gun ban.

Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. Anti-gun regulations don't address the deep-rooted causes of violent crime -- such as illegitimacy, unemployment, dysfunctional schools, and drug and alcohol abuse. The cures are complex and protracted. But that doesn't mean we have to become passive prey for criminal predators. Americans who want to defend themselves by possessing suitable firearms should be able to do so.

Off and on over the years, Washington has reclaimed its title as the nation's murder capital. The D.C. government has been minimally effective in disarming violent criminals. But it has done a superb job of disarming decent, peaceable residents. For starters, no handgun can be registered in the District. Even pistols registered before the District's 1976 ban cannot be carried from room to room in a home without a license, which is never granted. Moreover, all firearms in the home, including rifles and shotguns, must be unloaded and either disassembled or bound by trigger locks.

In effect, no one in the District can possess a functional firearm in his or her residence. And the law applies not just to "unfit" persons such as felons, minors or the mentally incompetent, but across the board to ordinary, honest, responsible citizens who live in the District, pay their taxes in the District and obey the laws of the District.

Sadly, if someone breaks into their homes, their only choice is to call 911 and pray that the police arrive quickly. That's not good enough. The right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution, includes the right to protect your property and your life. No government should be allowed to take that right away.

Unless the Court of Appeals elects to rehear Parker, the case will probably head to the Supreme Court; and that is where it belongs. The citizens of this country deserve a foursquare pronouncement from the nation's highest court about the real meaning of the Second Amendment. For those of us eagerly awaiting a clear statement in support of an individual's right to keep and bear arms, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has declared that the Constitution is on our side.

This article appeared in The Washington Post on March 12, 2007.
Click to expand...

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8126
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Interesting developments in the Parker appeal
2 3
Replies
70
Views
6K
alan
A
S
  • Locked
DC Court of Appeals: "DC GUN BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL"!!!
Replies
0
Views
410
SHOOT1SAM
S
JTHunter
  • Locked
Two 2A cases go to SCOTUS
Replies
6
Views
1K
bushmaster1313
B
G
  • Locked
D.C. Circuit Court Affirms Earlier Parker Ruling
Replies
1
Views
300
jpk1md
J
M
  • Locked
Parker Update: Levy Calls Out DC Mayor Fenty
Replies
6
Views
728
mons meg
M
Back
Top