Parker v. DC: Mayor Fenty to file appeal

Status
Not open for further replies.

hammer4nc

Member.
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
977
http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20070406-103240-7202r.htm

Fenty to appeal overturned gun ban in federal court

By Gary Emerling
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 7, 2007

D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty said city officials on Monday will file a legal challenge to a federal appeals court decision that struck down the District's 30-year-old gun ban.

"There's enough illegal guns in the District of Columbia," Mr. Fenty said during a press conference yesterday at the John A. Wilson Building. "We don't need to add to those guns with legal guns, which would then become illegal as they move from one person to one person to the next, until someone is killed with them."

On March 9, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned a previous lower-court decision against six city residents who filed suit to keep guns for self-protection. The panel ruled in a 2-1 decision that the right to bear arms as guaranteed in the Second Amendment applies to individuals and not only to militias. The ruling overturned portions of D.C. law that prohibit residents from keeping firearms in their homes and require owners of registered guns, including shotguns, to store them with trigger locks or keep them disassembled.

Mr. Fenty said the city would be filing a petition to have the full court rehear the case and that he is confident the District will win on the appeal. "We believe we'll be able to have the whole circuit court review this case," he said.

The District's gun laws, which are among the nation's strictest, will remain in place through the appeals process. Chris W. Cox, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, said the District's appeal was expected. "This action was anticipated all along," Mr. Cox said. "Mayor Fenty seems determined to do whatever he can to deny the lawful residents of the District the constitutionally protected right to defend yourself or your family in your own home."

Mr. Fenty's announcement was made during a press conference announcing a program to place anti-gun violence posters on Metro buses across the city. The posters -- most of which will feature a hand forming a peace sign with the words "guns aside" -- are part of an awareness campaign to reduce gun violence spearheaded by the nonprofit Root Inc. Each bus placard costs roughly $800 and was paid for by the health care provider Amerigroup and the D.C. Department of Health. They will be placed on roughly 20 Metro buses. Organizers of the campaign said there had been 40 homicides in the District this year as of Tuesday and that the number of robberies committed with a handgun had so far increased by 8 percent compared with last year.

Council member Jim Graham, Ward 1 Democrat who also attended the press conference, tied efforts to decrease gun violence with the fight to overturn the court decision. "We face not only a situation where we've got to keep guns off the streets, but now we've got to fight Congress and the courts from opening up the floodgates," Mr. Graham said.
 
Each bus placard costs roughly $800 and was paid for by the health care provider Amerigroup and the D.C. Department of Health.

So Fenty is using the taxpayer’s dollars to fund his own twisted political agenda? That is just disgusting.
 
But are the odds good in favor of the full court agreeing with the original decision against the gun ban?
Even if the en banc court switches the ruling, do you not think it will continue an upward trail to see if SCOTUS will take it for review?
 
"There's enough illegal guns in the District of Columbia," Mr. Fenty said during a press conference yesterday at the John A. Wilson Building. "We don't need to add to those guns with legal guns, which would then become illegal as they move from one person to one person to the next, until someone is killed with them."


Do you suppose he has instructed his security detail to get rid of their "legal" guns so they don't end up killing someone?:scrutiny:
 
AntiqueCollector said:
But are the odds good in favor of the full court agreeing with the original decision against the gun ban?
that remains to be seen. The supreme court has a conservative majority, but as we well know from Ronald Reagan to Rudy Giuliani to Michael Bloomberg, conservative doesn't always mean pro-gun...
 
Mr. Fenty's announcement was made during a press conference announcing a program to place anti-gun violence posters on Metro buses across the city. The posters -- most of which will feature a hand forming a peace sign with the words "guns aside" -- are part of an awareness campaign to reduce gun violence spearheaded by the nonprofit Root Inc. Each bus placard costs roughly $800 and was paid for by the health care provider Amerigroup and the D.C. Department of Health. They will be placed on roughly 20 Metro buses. Organizers of the campaign said there had been 40 homicides in the District this year as of Tuesday and that the number of robberies committed with a handgun had so far increased by 8 percent compared with last year.

And to really, REALLY impress the goons who are doing all of the shooting, they can sit in a big circle, hold hands, and light candles in memory of the slain victims. Stricken with remorse, the goon will then join the circle, light their own candles, and exchange their hardware for postage stamps to start their new collections. And maybe, just maybe – the Washington D.C. Health Department can spend its money on improving the resident’s health…

I feel warm and fuzzy already… :rolleyes:
 
"There's enough illegal guns in the District of Columbia," Mr. Fenty said during a press conference yesterday at the John A. Wilson Building. "We don't need to add to those guns with legal guns,

Of course! No need to allow law-abiding citizens to be on a level playing field with criminals. Might upset the natural balance inside the Beltway.


Mr. Fenty's announcement was made during a press conference announcing a program to place anti-gun violence posters on Metro buses across the city. The posters -- most of which will feature a hand forming a peace sign with the words "guns aside" -- are part of an awareness campaign to reduce gun violence spearheaded by the nonprofit Root Inc. Each bus placard costs roughly $800 and was paid for by the health care provider Amerigroup and the D.C. Department of Health.


Well, THERE's a great use of money. Those posters are really going to deter violent D.C. thugs. As if criminals in D.C. weren't already "aware" that honest citizens don't have guns.

They must be printing those things on parchment with 14K gold ink. $800 per poster? Ranks right up there with a $300 hammer or $400 toilet seat at the Pentagon.

I need to get into the placard business in D.C. and make my fortune.

But that's just me talking, on my day off, as a private citizen.
 
The busses around here always have advertisements. One way the bus system tries to pay for itself. But the city has to pay the same as a store or bank or whatever that also wants that space. It's not the physical price for the piece of paper, it's the demand for the place it's going.
 
Isn't it just grand how he assumes all the law-abiding citizens will automatically start illegally giving guns to criminals? If I lived in DC, I'd be rather offended by this. Think the people could sue him for libel and slander?
 
I wonder where these legal guns are going to come from? There is no where in the whole city that sells them. I am sure that Fenty would be long out of office before anyone would ever get a lic to sell one.
 
Even if the en banc court switches the ruling, do you not think it will continue an upward trail to see if SCOTUS will take it for review?
No. This is the real danger at this point in the process. If the full court reverses, the Supremes can refuse to grant cert for Parker's appeal. If the full court upholds the panel and DC appeals, there's a far greater chance that the Supremes will at last take up the issue.
 
The danger goes both ways.

DC gets a free re-hearing at the DC Court, good chance it gets reversed, Parker (actually just plaintiff Heller at this point, all others have lost standing) appeals to SCOTUS, which then reverses again making RKBA an individual right nationally - HUGE lose for the anti-gun side. Unbelievably huge loss; not an instant overturn of all 20,000 gun control laws, but strong basis for subsequent suits by the thousands to tear 'em down.

The stakes are very high for both sides at this point.

SCOTUS, if they take it ("IF"), will issue a very narrow ruling.
They can't risk an outright pro-individual-RKBA ruling, as that soon translates to unleashing enormous pent-up demand for machineguns (a political third rail).
They can't risk an outright anti-individual-RKBA ruling, as that means leaving only one "box" left.

The more I try to predict this one, the scareder I get: surely it won't come out a clean ruling for either side; unfortunately, that means a convoluted mess for us for decades to come.
 
"There's enough illegal guns in the District of Columbia," Mr. Fenty said during a press conference yesterday at the John A. Wilson Building. "We don't need to add to those guns with legal guns, which would then become illegal as they move from one person to one person to the next, until someone is killed with them."

The [lack of] logic here is mind-boggling! Let us hope the city's legal argument displays similar acumen.
 
Should this go before the Supreme Court, there may be trouble...>
http://www.yahoo.com/s/552143

Sat Apr 7, 10:32 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Justice
Anthony Kennedy has become the object of his colleagues' attention on a Supreme Court with four reliably conservative votes and four dependably liberal.

Six cases before the Supreme Court this term have come down to 5-4 votes. Kennedy, alone, was in the majority every time.

Two cases last week — including one the court turned down — highlighted his pivotal role in shaping just about any matter of consequence before the justices.

It is his vote that could decide pending cases on abortion and school integration, as well.

In a victory for environmentalists in the first Supreme Court case on global warming, Kennedy showed he can frustrate conservatives who hoped the court would move firmly to the right with two appointees of
President Bush on board.
It would be a MAJOR blow if the Supreme Court were to rule against an
individual's right to keep & bear arms..Justice Kennedy could be the key
player.
 
I think many people should ask the following question:

Are we going to, at least for the gun issue, get any better Supreme Court justices. The answer is likely no at least for the near future.
 
The Second Amendment DOES NOT apply to D.C. so we are screwed. :(

Congress is DC residents only hope to have handguns.
 
"There's enough illegal guns in the District of Columbia," Mr. Fenty said during a press conference yesterday at the John A. Wilson Building.


Kinda sums up the usefulness of gun-control laws.
 
D.C.

The Second Amendment DOES NOT apply to D.C. so we are screwed.

Not necessarily. SCOTUS ruled in Bolling v. Sharpe that the District still had to abide by Brown v. Board of Education even though it was not a state. Brown cited the 14th Amendment. If the District has to abide the 14th, then it has to abide by the 2nd. As the 14th was put in place to prevent states from usurping Federal Rights. (Note Sandford v. Scott ).
 
As the 14th was put in place to prevent states from usurping Federal Rights. (Note Sandford v. Scott ).

And here I was under the impression that the government didn't have any rights, but only powers which were enumerated in the Constitution...
 
The Second Amendment DOES NOT apply to D.C. so we are screwed.

Congress is DC residents only hope to have handguns.

Actually, the Second doesn't apply to the States at all. It applies to "We the People". It clearly state that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Despite court rulings trying to obfuscate this, this is a declaratory statement meant to protect an Individual Right.

http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_10.htm

It wasn't until biased court rulings came along trying to keep freed slaves from exercising these protected Rights that the whole 14th Amendment/Incorporation legal mythology came into being. It had no place in the Founders philosophy at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top