ctdonath
Member
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?
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?