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

[jpk1md]

DC Gossip

Latest DC Gossip is that Fenty/DC is not going to risk going to SCOTUS.

Instead they are going to take the 90 days to craft new onerous legislation regarding firearms possession in DC and pass it in the hopes that they will get another few years before a new lawsuit forces their hand and and it goes through the entire legal process again.

It would seem to indicate that they are willing to gamble that their chances of getting a favorable response from the Judiciary post 2008 will improve.....

 

[RealGun]

Latest DC Gossip is that Fenty/DC is not going to risk going to SCOTUS.

Instead they are going to take the 90 days to craft new onerous legislation regarding firearms possession in DC and pass it in the hopes that they will get another few years before a new lawsuit forces their hand and and it goes through the entire legal process again.

It would seem to indicate that they are willing to gamble that their chances of getting a favorable response from the Judiciary post 2008 will improve.....

That would be the signal for Congress to get involved instead of the current "wait and see what happens with Parker".

 

[jpk1md]

The current Dem Legislative Leadership has NO intention of addressing a 2A issue before the 2008 election...they know that it will have negative effects on their push for taking control of Executive Branch and Maintaining/Improving control of Leg Branch.

 

[madmike]

Which is stupid. If the Dems help this along, they'd pick up a bunch of votes.

Of course, that would mean actually being liberal and caring about individuals instead of the state.

 

[madmike]

So, I wonder...they draft something that says, "$100 a year inspection fee, have to have a safe, have to license gun at $100 a year, gun has to meet (requirements) that mean it will cost at least $700..."

Does Parker go right back to the same court and say, "This is clearly an infringement of my right" and get them slapped down again?

This could actually work out BETTER than SCOTUS. If those same two justices say, "storage requirements and licenses infringe on the right," it's another win, with a MUCH better definition.

 

[RealGun]

The current Dem Legislative Leadership has NO intention of addressing a 2A issue before the 2008 election...they know that it will have negative effects on their push for taking control of Executive Branch and Maintaining/Improving control of Leg Branch.

That would have backlash, if it was made clear that they were blocking the bill. What the Dems supposedly are avoiding is gun control, i.e. more of it. Removing a ban in DC works in the opposite direction.

 

[The Law]

So, I wonder...they draft something that says, "$100 a year inspection fee, have to have a safe, have to license gun at $100 a year, gun has to meet (requirements) that mean it will cost at least $700..."

Does Parker go right back to the same court and say, "This is clearly an infringement of my right" and get them slapped down again?

This could actually work out BETTER than SCOTUS. If those same two justices say, "storage requirements and licenses infringe on the right," it's another win, with a MUCH better definition.

I'd respectfully disagree with the statement that another Circuit decision would be better than a Supreme Court decision.

(1) The appellate process is LONG and SLOW. You'd be looking at several years (probably) for this to come around again and get a positive opinion. D.C. would have to draft and implement the law. The plaintiffs would have to file in district court, then a hearing/trial, then an appeal. This takes mucho time. I'd much prefer a SCOTUS opinion (hopefully positive) say, June 2008.

(2) Another D.C. Circuit decision will have a great, positive effect......for D.C. It will be persuasive law for anywhere else. That doesn't help those in other states, especially circuits that have expressly declared the "collective rights" gibberish. A SCOTUS opinion becomes CONTROLLING precedent for EVERY circuit.

All in all, a SCOTUS decision would be preferable to another D.C. circuit opinion. I'd rather risk having the Surpemes tackle this one.

 

[jpk1md]

That would have backlash, if it was made clear that they were blocking the bill. What the Dems supposedly are avoiding is gun control, i.e. more of it. Removing a ban in DC works in the opposite direction.

What most folks don't realize is that the vast majority of bills that are submitted never make it to a vote in the subcommittee that they are assigned to.

They're going to do the same thing to any 2A Issues that they are doing to Immigration and a dozen other REAL issues that COULD impact the 2008 election....they're not even going to whisper the issues under their breath.

They're going to keep wasting time on slam dunk issues like Emergency Appropriations Bills that SHOULD go through in 12 minutes but instead take 12 months and then declare that they didn't have time to deal with any of the other issues that they have neglected that happen to be politically sensitive.

Take a look at all the 'Hard Work" they're doing today and Fri!!!

Busy Busy Busy!!!

http://www.house.gov/house/floor/thisweek.htm

Actually the House is busy grilling AG Gonzales....again...waste of time.

Senate looks a little better:

http://senate.gov/pagelayout/committees/b_three_sections_with_teasers/committee_hearings.htm

 

[madmike]

I agree grilling Gonzales is a waste of time. They should be taking him about back to cuff him to a pole and shoot him.

I also agree a SCOTUS decision is ideal. But if we can't get that, let's beat DC until it bleeds. And since it's federal territory, several have said it could still be national precedent.

 

[sacp81170a]

So what happens to the current law if they don't appeal? Which sections of the law are struck down and which stand? I'm assuming that if they don't appeal the decision will be enforced and no longer stayed, right?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

(2) Another D.C. Circuit decision will have a great, positive effect......for D.C. It will be persuasive law for anywhere else. That doesn't help those in other states, especially circuits that have expressly declared the "collective rights" gibberish. A SCOTUS opinion becomes CONTROLLING precedent for EVERY circuit.

Except that choice of venue rules allow people from practically any state to bring suit in D.C. over federal laws, so precedent in the D.C. Circuit is important and has effects outside D.C.

Otherwise, I'd agree that a SCOTUS ruling would be preferable.

I'm assuming that if they don't appeal the decision will be enforced and no longer stayed, right?

Yes.

 

[The Law]

Except that choice of venue rules allow people from practically any state to bring suit in D.C. over federal laws, so precedent in the D.C. Circuit is important and has effects outside D.C.

Otherwise, I'd agree that a SCOTUS ruling would be preferable.

Theoretically, that's possible. I don't see every plaintiff dragging themselves to D.C. to file a 1986 complaint (or whatever - either now or in the future).

But it's still far from a SCOTUS ruling, which would be ideal.

 

[madmike]

If SCOTUS rules it IS a civil right, do you suppose those !@#$les at the ACLU will take 2A cases?

I'd love to see their budget and attack lawyers brought to bear. But part of me thinks they'll find a way to insist it's not really the type of right they're interested in, go see the NRA if you need help.

 

[Titan6]

Theoretically, that's possible. I don't see every plaintiff dragging themselves to D.C. to file a 1986 complaint (or whatever - either now or in the future).

But it's still far from a SCOTUS ruling, which would be ideal.

What is they live in Virginia? Virginia had no prohibition laws prior to the ban.

 

[jpk1md]

The problem with this not going to SCOTUS and allowing the decision to stand is that its only good for DC since this is the DC Circuit Court and DC Alone!

Md, VA etc are on a different circuit court altogether and while it carries SOME weight as a precedent its not particularly valuable outside of DC.

It would actually be a very smart move for the Anti's NATIONALLY to pursue this strategy and deal with the decision NOW as is and prevent a larger precident from being established with real national ramifications.

If this really does occur anyone want to guess who's actually pulling the strings on this? We KNOW Fenty isn't sharp/trusted enough make this one on his own.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Theoretically, that's possible. I don't see every plaintiff dragging themselves to D.C. to file a 1986 complaint (or whatever - either now or in the future).

Not every plaintiff; but those with SAF and NRA support will likely make it there if it makes good strategic sense.

 

[Chad]

Md, VA etc are on a different circuit court altogether and while it carries SOME weight as a precedent its not particularly valuable outside of DC.

Don't discount the weight that precedent can wield, especially on an issue like this.

The DC Court's ruling has value for us in it's own right, in both the legal and PR arenas.

If it goes to SCOTUS that will probably be a good thing, but it won't be a setback if it doesn't.

And as I've already said it really doesn't do much for DC residents.

It's just a tool, not a battle won.

 

[The Law]

Not every plaintiff; but those with SAF and NRA support will likely make it there if it makes good strategic sense.

Oh, yes. Definitely. That I whole-heartedly agree with.

I would prefer to see Fenty petition for cert. But his puppeteers are no dummies.