Parker Stayed for Cert Appeal

[Ninja]

DC petitioned the Circuit to stay the mandate until August 7, deadline for their filing a petition for cert. in the Supreme Court. The Circuit granted the stay. Judge Silberman appends a comment to the effect that DC has only said it "may" file a petition, but that he would view their filing this motion, and then not filing for cert., as an abuse of the system. An interesting comment, quite true, but also has a "bring it on" quality to it.

Note on procedure: when a higher court issues a ruling, that is followed by a mandate. The opinion says who won and why. The mandate is the actual order to the lower court to carry out the higher court's decision. It's delayed a bit, since someone may file for rehearing, etc..

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/05/parker_case_sta.php

On to SCOTUS! I can't believe how stupid the DC attorneys are. Oh wait, yes I can

 

[jillian]

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/05/parker_case_sta.php

On to SCOTUS! I can't believe how stupid the DC attorneys are. Oh wait, yes I can

Stupid? Maybe... but why do you think that? Because they didn't file for cert yet? Maybe they just want time to amend the law so it will either pass muster or implementation of the Court's ruling will be delayed.

Do you really think they'll get a different result from Bush's SCOTUS?

 

[Ninja]

I think they're stupid because there isn't a snowball's chance they get a different result.

This could be the decision that gets the ball rolling to repeal state AW bans all over the country.

Ooohhhhhhhhh... I shouldn't get carried away with my amateur lawyering, but that would be sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.

 

[jillian]

I think they're stupid because there isn't a snowball's chance they get a different result.

This could be the decision that gets the ball rolling to repeal state AW bans all over the country.

Ooohhhhhhhhh... I shouldn't get carried away with my amateur lawyering, but that would be sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.

Not really... (although I think the AWB that they allowed to sunset last year (I think) was pretty badly written). The Court will limit the decision to it's facts because that will be the case an controversy before it. But any decision it renders will be used by litigants seeking to overturn the other bans.

I think I already said I agree they won't get a different result. What they can do is moot the decision by amending the law and making the gun folk re-litigate. They'd have to start all over. So maybe the D.C. lawyers aren't so stupid after all.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

DC is not a normal city. It is Federal. I am opposed to weapons bans in general, but believe that DC is a different ball of wax. Being Federal it can and does have things on the books that States might not have.

Generally one can not bring weapons into courthouses or other State and federal buildings. The entire City exists for the purpose of being a Capitol with Federal Buildings everywhere.

The ban should go away, but only if the rule of law is applied correctly.

 

[Ninja]

For the record, the lawsuit wasn't brought by the "gun folk" - just everyday, law-abiding citizens who wanted to challenge a draconian, unconstitutional law that barred them from owning functional longarms and any handguns.

Incidentally, one of the plaintiffs was one of the co-counders of the Pink Pistols ( http://www.pinkpistols.org/ ). Three were women.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/10/AR2007031001412.html

The NRA wasn't involved at all. In fact, my sources tell me that the NRA would have preferred to keep this from going to SCOTUS until its an absolute lock that they'll side with the plaintiffs.

This was the doing of regular people who had the temerity to demand their constitutional rights back.

 

[Ninja]

DC is not a normal city. It is Federal. I am opposed to weapons bans in general, but believe that DC is a different ball of wax. Being Federal it can and does have things on the books that States might not have.

Generally one can not bring weapons into courthouses or other State and federal buildings. The entire City exists for the purpose of being a Capitol with Federal Buildings everywhere.

The ban should go away, but only if the rule of law is applied correctly.

The DC lawyers tried to argue that the 2A wasn't applicable because of the very fact that DC isn't a state... Ask Adrian Fenty how that worked out

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It could be true IF for example DC didn't have private residence in the confines of the federal portion. The military restricts weapons also on board bases.

I am not arguing that the Amendment doesn't apply, I am saying that in this particular case the amendment may not be an over riding factor.