D.C. Court of Appeals denies en banc hearing in Parker

[ChestyP]

The en banc hearing by the entire D.C. Court of Appeals, requested by the District of Columbia, has been denied.

At this point, the District's options are to let the original ruling stand (overturning the D.C. handgun ban) or appeal to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS).

It will be interesting to see who supports and who opposes a SCOTUS appeal.

The second question here is, what about the injunction granted to withhold enforcement of the trial court decision pending appeal (i.e. D.C.'s handgun ban remains in effect pending appeal)? Will they seek a new injunction? Can they seek an injunction?

And thanks to GCA 1968, is there a licensed FFL within the District who can lawfully sell handguns to D.C. residents? (Although it would appear -- if no injunction is granted -- that C&R licensees can order direct across state/district lines).

 

[The Law]

Can you cite a source for this?

Thanks.

 

[ilbob]

At this point, the District's options are to let the original ruling stand (overturning the D.C. handgun ban) or appeal to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS).

My bet is on the former. Few on either side want the SCOTUS to actually rule. It is fraught with way too much risk for either side.

My guess is that DC modifies its law to be more like NYC, which is still de facto prohibition hoping the courts would allow such a law to stand.

The SCOTUS does not want to toss thousands of local and state laws out. It is just not something they want to be forced to do, so my guess is if it gets there, they will very narrowly tailor a ruling if they vote in favor of the 2A.

 

[ChestyP]

Other than

the copy of the court order I'm holding that Bob Levy sent me, no.

It's "United States Court of Appeals, for the District of Columbia, No. 04-7041, dated May 8, 2007." It should be available at the court's web site.

 

[The Law]

the copy of the court order I'm holding that Bob Levy sent me, no.

It's "United States Court of Appeals, for the District of Columbia, No. 04-7041, dated May 8, 2007." It should be available at the court's web site.

Great! Thanks.

 

[ChestyP]

NO Second Amendment ruling will toss "thousands of local and state laws out." If the Supes agree with the trial court verbatim, it will directly affect only Chicago's similar handgun registration freeze.

The critical part of "Parker" is the ruling that the 2A affirms an individual right. Once that happens, we begin peeling laws back, one category at a time.

Parker is a very narrow decision. And the immediate impact will be narrow.

 

[El Tejon]

ilbob, no, this is going to the Supremes. This is it. Get ready.

 

[jpk1md]

Not avail yet......

 

[ChestyP]

Here's the text of the ruling

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 04-7041 September Term, 2006
03cv00213
Filed On: May 8, 2007 [1039073]

Shelly Parker, et al.,
Appellants
v.
District of Columbia and Adrian Fenty, Mayor of the
District of Columbia,
Appellees

BEFORE: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Sentelle, Henderson, Randolph,*
Rogers,* Tatel,* Garland,* Brown, Griffith, and Kavanaugh,
Circuit Judges

O R D E R

Appellees’ petition for rehearing en banc and the response thereto were
circulated to the full court, and a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges eligible to participate did not vote in favor of the petition. Upon consideration of the foregoing and appellees’ Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) letter, it is
ORDERED that the petition be denied.
Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY:
Michael C. McGrail
Deputy Clerk

* Circuit Judges Randolph, Rogers, Tatel, and Garland would grant the petition for
rehearing en banc.

 

[Kaylee]

waiiit... if it's saying you can't say "everthing has to be registered" then effectively ban something by freezing the registry - would letting this stand also open back up the machine gun registry?

-K

 

[Trebor]

waiiit... if it's saying you can't say "everthing has to be registered" then effectively ban something by freezing the registry - would letting this stand also open back up the machine gun registry?

Maybe. It wouldn't be automatic though. Assuming the Supreme Court upholds the ruling that the 2A is an individual right, someone could sue and make the argument that the closing of the NFA registry denies that right. How a court would rule on that I don't know. It might be considered a "reasonable restriction."

The whole thing is very "iffy" so those people who are planning to run out and buy a brand-new MG the day after the Supreme Court issues a favorable ruling are really, really getting ahead of themselves.

 

[bsf]

waiiit... if it's saying you can't say "everthing has to be registered" then effectively ban something by freezing the registry - would letting this stand also open back up the machine gun registry?

-K

That would be nice.

 

[Igloodude]

Outstanding!!

Now the $64K question - will DC appeal to SCOTUS, or will the Brady bunch looking to prevent the 'damage' from spreading nationwide convince Mayor Fenty to swallow the Parker decision?

 

[jpk1md]

You know what, the sun is a little brighter, the sky a little bluer and life is just a little better.

Hopefully SCOTUS will go as well.

 

[ChestyP]

Here's a link to

the Second Amendment Foundation release on the ruling:


http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=225

 

[ozwyn]

nice way to brighten up the week. good news on the rights front is always welcome, regardless of how large or small the progress

 

[coltrane679]

DC can avoid an appeal, adopt a new law just slightly less onerous (say, allowing gun ownership, but subject to some virtually impossible to meet licensing requirements), and then that would have to be litigated all over again. Not saying it is likely to happen, but it could. The Brady Bunch would like this strategy, since it means that it is highly improbable that a 2A case makes it to this Supreme Court--and, maybe, by the time one does, Obama or Hillary has had a chance to appoint a justice or two that might vote anti-2A. Unfortunately for them, the next likely retirement (Stevens) is probably an anti-2A vote already, so they gain nothing there with just one appointment--they would need some act of fate to intervene (like an illness to Scalia or Thomas) to give the libs a second appointment.

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

ilbob, no, this is going to the Supremes. This is it. Get ready.

My feeling is the Supremes are too chicken-s__t to take this up. Expanding this decision beyond DC would be too chaotic. The Supremes don't like to rock the boat unless there is a clear direction the country is heading down, in which case they just see themselves as hurrying along the inevitable. Gun control is going opposite ways in red and some blue states vs. most blue states.

But I'm not an expert. I wonder what the expert SCOTUS-watchers think of this news.

 

[ilbob]

NO Second Amendment ruling will toss "thousands of local and state laws out." If the Supes agree with the trial court verbatim, it will directly affect only Chicago's similar handgun registration freeze.

If the ruling is that narrow, it won't matter in Chicago. Chicago allows at least some long guns.

 

[ChestyP]

If the ruling is that narrow, it won't matter in Chicago. Chicago allows at least some long guns.

D.C. allows long guns, too. This is about the freeze on handgun registrations, a de facto handgun ban. Just like Chicago. The only separate issue with Chicago is, D.C. is not a state. SCOTUS can rule that the Second Amendment applies to the District because it is separate federal territory, without applying it to any state. But that would be a stretch.

 

[Lonestar49]

Interesting Comparison IMO

Quote:
NO Second Amendment ruling will toss "thousands of local and state laws out." If the Supes agree with the trial court verbatim, it will directly affect only Chicago's similar handgun registration freeze.

*The critical part of "Parker" is the ruling that the 2A affirms an individual right.
--------------------
...

Here in California, 2yrs ago, the elections had a measure to "Allow medical Marijuana to be used when prescribed by a Doctor, to those patients, that are suffering pain, thru Cancer, it's treatment, other type sufferings, for relief of pain etc."

It passed with overwhelming voter support, and became California Law..

But, as it seems, the trend of late, the "sore losers" appealed it in a Court of Law, and to be honest, I'm not sure where it is at this point. But, no matter the California vote, at the time it passed, the Federal Government, and its Federal Police, "refused to recognize this law of California" and would take action against those that grew Marijuana for the purpose of what is termed, Medical Marijuana Use, as prescribed by law and Doctors for those patients deemed, in need.

This carried over to "users of Marijuana" as well..

This is my main beef: *We have a 2nd Amendment, and yet each State can vote into law, its own design of gun laws, and yet, this RIGHT, is stripped, by local PD, as well as the Feds, and the same is happening with the Medical Marijuana Law, where the Feds don't recognize a/our State Law allowing it, and even many local State PD's are acting on it, by seizing, and arresting, both the medical user, with Dr.'s legit prescription for it, and the growers, for supplying the Medical Marijuana to the Doctors.

Seems like they can have their Cake, and eat it too.. States don't recognize the Federal Law, that 2nd Amendment RIGHT of the citizen to bear arms has no authority in their State, and the Feds don't recognize a States Laws, as to medical Marijuana use, and the suppliers of it.


What a country..



LS

 

[Augustwest]

I'm not sure where it is at this point.

California's choice was struck down in one of the most twisted, freedom-loathing U.S. Supreme Court decisions in our nation's history.

 

[romma]

I think the opinion is changing overall in most places you wouldn't even expect it. I suspect most people in this country are tired of the "sky is falling" Chicken Little mentality.

 

[romma]

I wonder what the reaction would be, if mass mailings went out to residents of places like DC, New York and Los Angeles with some sort of information pamphlet entitled "Concealed Carry Works In Most Places In The Country: And No Bloood Runs In The Street!" Point out how these poor defensless potential victims are disarmed by their elected officials. Educate them... Billboards would be fun too on the major traffic arteries...

 

[TheFederalistWeasel]

Kick A$$!!!!!