District of Columbia Mayor Adrian M. Fenty told reporters on Tuesday that an appeal to the Supreme Court is one option being considered as the city seeks to regain full authority to regulate private possession of handguns.
About damn time. Bring it on.
[Via Of Arms and the Law]
16 comments:
Sorry, David. With a ratio of 5 to 4 liberals, and Darth Vader Ginsburg eading the pack, I still don't trust the outcome. Likely we'll have to tell the D.C. gov't that we don't care about the gun ban; cops that enforce it will be treated as looters, and I don't think the people of D.C. have the stones for that.
I with David on this one, "bring it on" indeed!
This is a high stakes gamble for gun rights groups, clearly. But faced with the gun control strategy of incremental erosion of rights, the death of a thousand cuts, an “all in” approach was called for. NRA just never had the stones for it.
I do think though that a SCOTUS hearing of Parker bodes well for the cause of gun rights. It is surely not without risks but “much must be risked in war” and make no mistake in the minds of the gun control groups there is a war on guns.
Should have read "I'm with David".
Proofreading is our friend.
And what do you guys think will happen even if we win the case in the SCOTUS? All federal gun laws will become void? Give me a break!
The issue will be "settled" and nothing will change.
No, all federal gun laws will not become void. But, certain infringements will become difficult if not impossible under an individual right to keep and bear arms.
For example in Chicago IL you may not own a handgun, period. Such blanket bans would likely not pass Constitutional muster if Parker should prevail.
I think you underestimate how big a deal this is.
I think the Supreme Court will not hear the case because:
If they admit that the Second Amendment says what we know it says, all gun laws would be clearly illegal. If they say the Second Amendment doesn't say what we know it says, they will be inviting civil war as there will be nothing to lose at that point. It is easier for the cowards to just refuse to hear it.
I hope I'm wrong, and I hope it goes "our" way if they do hear it. And then I would hope the "leaders" would have the sense to UPHOLD the Second Amendment in all its implications from that point forward.
If not... I'm ready.
I think they will take a pass. They have every time since 1934. And their reasoning was very flawed through incompetence and ignorance.
I'm not so sure they will pass as their is a split in the circuits on the issue and that may tip them over to the point of taking the case on.
Bounty Hunter
I don't think that they'd have to throw out all gun laws - even with the much-beloved-by-the-establishment First Amendment there are 'reasonable restrictions'.
I suspect that there are people on their side who are already working on several sets of 'reasonable restrictions' in order to have one ready for whatever may happen.
Off the top of my head I'd suspect we could wind up with something like:
Concealed carry can be restricted to 'permitted' persons.
Full-auto can be restricted to 'permitted' persons but perhaps with fewer restrictions than currently exist.
More restrictions on 'discharge' since they can always say that's not an infrigement as long as there's one range 'available' somewhere, somehow.
I do think 1894C is right. This is big, even though it won't get rid of all the other gun restrictions. But now we have a court that actually says the 2A is an individual right. It will, or should, get rid of out and out gun bans. But a licensing system like NYC's travesty is still constitutional under this decision. Now, we need to go after the rest of the laws based on the part of the 2A that says "shall not be infringed", for that's what all thes restrictive laws are: infringements.
Croatalus Said:
"It [parker if upheld] will, or should, get rid of out and out gun bans. But a licensing system like NYC's travesty is still constitutional under this decision."
I think this is a MOST CRITICAL point that few people are making, or have even come to realize. I think gun control groups are already planning what they will do once Parker is upheld which many of them suspect will happen.
Gun control groups are planning now for that contingency, while gunowners are nay saying whether SCOTUS will hear the case, or fretting that it won't make a difference in any case.
Once again gun control groups are thinking ahead while many gunowners don't even know the potential ramifications of a pro Parker ruling.
WE should be planning our next move assuming Parker goes our way in the SCOTUS. I'm left shaking my head wondering why even many gunowners I know don't see this as a big deal.
1894C, I think we all see it as a big deal. I think perhaps those of us that think the USSC will not take it up, of which I am one, is that if they do not grant cert, all the infringements now in effect in all but two Federal Judicial Districts remain in effect.
I think there is a very good likelihood that the court will not want to divest the state of all that power. A thing like that could change completely the awe with which the majority surrender their rights willingly. Ergo, I think the Court will be unwilling to do that. An unfavorable ruling for our side may be seen by the majority as the last straw, and I suspect the Court does not want to be the fomenting agent of civil unrest or outright rebellion.
On the other hand, I think the anti's are not willing to take the chance that the Court will rule properly on this issue, but in order to placate their bases may feel forced to petition for cert, all the while hoping it is not granted.
In other words, I suspect we may see an ungentlemanly agreement for the petition and denial in ordet to maintain the status quo in all the Federal Judicial District not affected by recent rulings in favor of the Constitution. This would, after all, leave the yoke of oppression of rights on the vast majority of the American people and geography.
The Court only needs a flimsy and ephemeral reason to deny cert. A much lower standard than they would need to reverse Parker. A denial would leave them on the side of the state without exposing them to the criticisms and actions of a betrayed people, who will then be arguing about how stupid the denial was, rather than the discussing the real issue.
I hope I am wrong. However, this has been the history of the Court with no exceptions so far since Miller on 2A.
SA,
I don’t think the SCOTUS will have an easy time denying certiorari. The case is well framed, for the plaintiffs to have standing. By raising this issue in DC this is clearly a federal issue, this is the genius of Parker. The SCOTUS cannot say they will deny certiorari in this case by raising the states rights issue. DC was chosen by the Cato group in part for this reason.
If the gun control groups ever imagined for a second that the DC circuit court would so rule they would have themselves pushed for a relaxing of the DC ban.
The SCOTUS is mandated to base granting certiorari on whether the question is a "significant federal issue in the public interest". Hard to deny based on that standard.
This is a high stakes gamble for gun rights groups, clearly. But faced with the gun control strategy of incremental erosion of rights, the death of a thousand cuts, an “all in” approach was called for. NRA just never had the stones for it.
> The Court only needs a flimsy and ephemeral reason to deny cert.
I wasn't aware that SCOTUS needed to cite any reason to justify their denying cert.
> The SCOTUS is mandated to base granting certiorari on whether the question is a "significant federal issue in the public interest".
Citation, please?
Mark Odell
Mark Odell that is why I said it the way I did. Any damn reason at all is good enough to deny cert and the Court is not obligated to state its reasons. It can and has denied cert before, without comment.
That is where the "ephemeral" came in, in my comment. We are left to wonder at the wisps of smoke that might have been their reason for denying cert. Doesn't get much more ephemeral than that.
You're technically correct that the SCOTUS does not need to cite ANY reason to deny certiorari.
Also the word "mandate" is too strong. I should not have used it.
But according to USC title 28 rule 10
"The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:
(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort
(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court
Plus in accordance with USC title 28 rule 14 as part of the petition will state:
(g) A concise statement of the case setting out the facts material to consideration of the questions presented, and also containing the following:
(ii) If review of a judgment of a United States court of appeals is sought, the basis for federal jurisdiction in the court of first instance.
So while you are correct that the SCOTUS does not HAVE to grant certiorari the fact that the issue is without doubt a strictly federal issue, plus one that deals with the Bill of Rights, and finally deals with a conflict among the circuit courts all strongly suggest that the SCOTUS will have a hard time failing to grant certiorari.
I'll be the first to admit is is possible they will fail to grant certiorari; it will be difficult to do so out of hand.
Even Laurence Tribe Harvard law professor has said “there’s a really quite decent chance that it will be affirmed.”
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070506/ZNYT02/705061047
IMO This is not the type of case that the SCOTUS can lightly turn away from.
In any case we should know by the fall.
Post a Comment