Parker cross-appeal?

[ctdonath]

AFAIK, the rest of the Parker plaintiffs have an un-answered cross-appeal sitting in stasis before SCOTUS.

Consider:

Mr. Heller is the only remaining Parker plaintiff because he was the only one who actually filed for a permit, and was formally rejected. The others lost standing because they didn't file, and did so because there was no legal possibility of applications being accepted.

Mr. Heller is currently facing the prospect of losing standing in a subsequent complaint because - thanks to the new DC laws - he can't apply for a permit. To apply, he must first hand over the item to be registered (his M1911), which will be promptly confiscated and destroyed (on grounds of being an illegal MG under DC definitions), which means there will be nothing to register. He won't get a rejection because there is nothing to register, and thus nothing to issue a rejection for. DC is being too clever by half.

Now, since SCOTUS issued a ruling saying "the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home", but since new DC laws prevent even an attempt at registration, we now have the bizzare case where a plaintiff who had standing all the way to SCOTUS (and won) suddenly loses standing because of the opposition's too-clever compliance with the highest verdict.

SO ... since Mr. Heller won the case, but now has lost standing in the manner which the other plaintiffs lost standing, but surely that does not mean Mr. Heller's claim & win evaporate, the upshot is that the other Parker plaintiffs have exactly the same valid claim that case winner Mr. Heller has: didn't apply for a permit because of laws rendering attempts thereat either impossible or moot.

Thoughts?

 

[Gray Peterson]

The cross appeal was GVR'd as far as I know.

 

[LB7_Driver]

There's the 180 day "amnesty" period for people to register previously illegal guns they have owned.

I wonder how hard they (DC) get slapped down for confiscating all the non-revolvers people try to register.

 

[azredhawk44]

Heller can always resist confiscation when he brings his weapon in for registration.

Not necessarily shooting anyone, but maybe getting tackled/assaulted due to refusal to actively hand over the weapon.

He'd probably get criminal charges pressed against him for refusal to comply with an officer's orders or the like... perhaps illegal possession of a firearm. Who knows.

Certainly risky, but an option.

 

[Black Knight]

Doesn't the DC law say that in order to be a machine gun it must fire more than 10 rounds before reloading? The 1911 fires 7 or 8. I might be wrong but it seems to me that even under their own definition the 1911 would be allowed. Of course considering it is DC they will come up with some other reason. Here is the reason," the 1911 was designed for use by the military for purposes of killing enemy soldiers at close distances, therefore it is a military weapon the same as a machine gun". After listening to the rest of their drivel I think this is what they would try.

 

[Igloodude]

11+ round magazines are available for the 1911, so it (by DC's odd logic) is a machine gun. If they didn't take into account magazines that could be acquired, I could easily present a Thompson SMG as a single-shot rifle by including only a modified single-round "magazine".

 

[natman]

Doesn't the DC law say that in order to be a machine gun it must fire more than 10 rounds before reloading? The 1911 fires 7 or 8.

It doesn't matter to DC how many rounds the pistol actually holds. What is important to them is that it is "bottom loading", so it could, in theory, hold more than 12 rounds if you had a magazine long enough. That makes it a "machine gun".

 

[Gildas]

The cross appeal was GVR'd as far as I know.

Nope. Cert was denied. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-grants-2-more-cases/

Among its orders Friday, the Court took its first actions on cases on gun rights following its Second Amendment decision Thursday: it denied review of an appeal by a firearms manufacturer, Michael J. Kelly, Sr.., who argued that Congress violated the Second Amendment by making it a crime to make, transfer or possess a semi-automatic assault weapon (Kelly v. U.S., 07-776), and it refused to hear an appeal by five Washington, D.C., residents who had wanted to take part in the challenge to the city’s ban on handgun possession (Parker, et al., v. District of Columbia, 07-335).

While the Court did not explain those denials, the law challenged in the Kelly case had lapsed on Sept. 13, 2004, and the “standing” issue in the Parker case lost most of its significance when the Court on Thursday struck down the handgun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290).

I.e. even if the court took the case and overruled the Circuit Court on Standing, the law they are challenging is no more, so there could be no remedy.

 

[Rabid Rabbit]

Not a lawyer but couldn't he get standing without getting arrested by attempting to buy a semi and get rejected? He could also challange the one gun per person by buying a second revolver.

 

[ctdonath]

Ah, that appeal has been denied.
From SCOTUS website on Parker:

Jun 27 2008 Petition DENIED.

My question is moot.

 

[ctdonath]

Heller can always resist confiscation when he brings his weapon in for registration.

He'll be in a world of hurt if he brings one in. As observed in another thread: Mr. Heller keeps his outside the District. He is, at the moment, complying with the law. The moment he brings 'em into DC, he's committing a crime! (thus wrecking his upstanding-citizen status). The "amnesty" is ONLY for already-illegal items; while others may get away with smuggling items across the border, he has far too high a profile in this case to risk doing ANYTHING illegal, even if it will officially be forgiven.