Below you will find a piece from www.gunweek.com. It talks about another court challenge to the DC ban.
Recently SWAT had an article where a columnist made the clear point that is time for gun owners and supporters of the RKBA to expect some proactive payback from Bush for the support he has gotten. The DOJ memo is just a memo, the AWB expired not because of Bush who would have signed it. HR 218 was for police and not the ordinary Joe or Jill. So the authors states that we should demand that Bush be proactive. In the case of the DC ban, since he is Prez - this is a perfect opportunity for him to have the goverment attorneys of the DOJ to take active part in overturning the ban and/or strongly supporting the bill which had passed in the House.
Will he?
The article:
DC Court Panel Dumps Gun Case; 2nd Case Ready
by Dave Workman
Senior Editor
Plaintiffs in a civil challenge of the Washington, DC, handgun ban have until March 25 to file a motion for a hearing before the full DC District Court of Appeals, after a three-judge panel dismissed the case last month on the grounds that the plaintiffs lack standing.
Attorney Stephen Halbrook, lead counsel on the case, told Gun Week that he was considering legal options after the 2-1 decision. Plaintiffs brought the case contending that they live in high-crime neighborhoods, and that the gun ban makes it impossible for them to keep loaded firearms in their homes for personal protection. One plaintiff owns a handgun but stores it outside the District in order to avoid violating the law.
Meanwhile, the ruling may have set in motion another challenge to the District gun ban, the Parker case, which was brought on behalf of several District residents by Robert Levy, senior fellow in Constitutional Studies with the Cato Institute. The Parker case had actually been brought first, with the Seegars case—supported by the National Rifle Association—filed subsequently.
Levy told Gun Week that he believes the Parker case can be distinguished from Seegars on several levels, not the least of which was that “one of our plaintiffs actually applied for permission to have a gun and was turned down.â€
When the appeals court agreed to hear Seegars, Levy recalled, “we were instructed that once Seegars had been disposed of we could file (a motion) within 30 days.â€
Writing for the majority in the Seegars ruling, Senior Circuit Judge Stephen Williams noted, “. . . because no plaintiff has demonstrated a threat of prosecution sufficiently imminent under circuit law, we have no justiciable case or controversy before us.â€
Halbrook suggested that Williams’ majority opinion “almost reads like an invitation to file a petition for rehearing.†He said Williams’ ruling discusses the fact that case law regarding the District gun ban “is in disarray.†The ruling, citing conflicting legal precedents, suggested that none of the plaintiffs faced a sufficient threat of prosecution unless they violate the law.
“It’s almost like you have to actually commit a crime, confess to the police and face jail,†Halbrook observed.
Williams alluded to that problem and cited an earlier 4th Circuit Court decision that noted, “Public policy should encourage a person aggrieved by laws he considers unconstitutional to seek a declaratory judgment against the arm of the state entrusted with the state’s enforcement power, all the while complying with the challenged law, rather than to deliberately break the law and take his chances in the ensuing suit or prosecution.â€
Plaintiffs in the Seegars case are seeking the ability to apply for gun permits in the District, in order to possess firearms, specifically handguns, in their homes. None of them, said Halbrook, has any intention of willfully violating the ban.
“Nobody in his right mind, certainly not a law-abiding citizen, would break the law before filing a civil action,†Halbrook observed.
He believes there is a strong likelihood (Continued from Page 1)
that the full appeals court will hear the case, primarily because Williams noted that case law is in disarray, and because there was a strong dissenting opinion from Judge David Sentelle. In his dissent, Sentelle wrote, “The record offers essentially undisputed evidence of the appellants’ intent to engage in gun-related conduct prohibited by the challenged Code provisions. Appellants adequately allege and argue that this conduct is protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.â€
Sentelle alluded to a Supreme Court ruling that noted, “When the plaintiff has alleged an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder, he should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief.â€
While Halbrook is weighing his options, and Levy is prepared to move forward with his case, Congress is still considering legislation that might strike down the 29-year-old ban. Last year, the House voted 250-171 to strike the ban down, over objections from the District government, congressional anti-gunners such as Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), and from the District’s non-voting House delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton.
It will be up to the Senate to take up the issue.
“This is far from being over,†Halbrook said.
_______
PS - this is really funny. I'm working on a book chapter that describes Masters and Johnson's stages of orgasm. I forgot that I had that copied rather than the article. When I pasted, I got SEX - not guns. Glad I didn't hit the send button to quickly. Talk about an ND.
Recently SWAT had an article where a columnist made the clear point that is time for gun owners and supporters of the RKBA to expect some proactive payback from Bush for the support he has gotten. The DOJ memo is just a memo, the AWB expired not because of Bush who would have signed it. HR 218 was for police and not the ordinary Joe or Jill. So the authors states that we should demand that Bush be proactive. In the case of the DC ban, since he is Prez - this is a perfect opportunity for him to have the goverment attorneys of the DOJ to take active part in overturning the ban and/or strongly supporting the bill which had passed in the House.
Will he?
The article:
DC Court Panel Dumps Gun Case; 2nd Case Ready
by Dave Workman
Senior Editor
Plaintiffs in a civil challenge of the Washington, DC, handgun ban have until March 25 to file a motion for a hearing before the full DC District Court of Appeals, after a three-judge panel dismissed the case last month on the grounds that the plaintiffs lack standing.
Attorney Stephen Halbrook, lead counsel on the case, told Gun Week that he was considering legal options after the 2-1 decision. Plaintiffs brought the case contending that they live in high-crime neighborhoods, and that the gun ban makes it impossible for them to keep loaded firearms in their homes for personal protection. One plaintiff owns a handgun but stores it outside the District in order to avoid violating the law.
Meanwhile, the ruling may have set in motion another challenge to the District gun ban, the Parker case, which was brought on behalf of several District residents by Robert Levy, senior fellow in Constitutional Studies with the Cato Institute. The Parker case had actually been brought first, with the Seegars case—supported by the National Rifle Association—filed subsequently.
Levy told Gun Week that he believes the Parker case can be distinguished from Seegars on several levels, not the least of which was that “one of our plaintiffs actually applied for permission to have a gun and was turned down.â€
When the appeals court agreed to hear Seegars, Levy recalled, “we were instructed that once Seegars had been disposed of we could file (a motion) within 30 days.â€
Writing for the majority in the Seegars ruling, Senior Circuit Judge Stephen Williams noted, “. . . because no plaintiff has demonstrated a threat of prosecution sufficiently imminent under circuit law, we have no justiciable case or controversy before us.â€
Halbrook suggested that Williams’ majority opinion “almost reads like an invitation to file a petition for rehearing.†He said Williams’ ruling discusses the fact that case law regarding the District gun ban “is in disarray.†The ruling, citing conflicting legal precedents, suggested that none of the plaintiffs faced a sufficient threat of prosecution unless they violate the law.
“It’s almost like you have to actually commit a crime, confess to the police and face jail,†Halbrook observed.
Williams alluded to that problem and cited an earlier 4th Circuit Court decision that noted, “Public policy should encourage a person aggrieved by laws he considers unconstitutional to seek a declaratory judgment against the arm of the state entrusted with the state’s enforcement power, all the while complying with the challenged law, rather than to deliberately break the law and take his chances in the ensuing suit or prosecution.â€
Plaintiffs in the Seegars case are seeking the ability to apply for gun permits in the District, in order to possess firearms, specifically handguns, in their homes. None of them, said Halbrook, has any intention of willfully violating the ban.
“Nobody in his right mind, certainly not a law-abiding citizen, would break the law before filing a civil action,†Halbrook observed.
He believes there is a strong likelihood (Continued from Page 1)
that the full appeals court will hear the case, primarily because Williams noted that case law is in disarray, and because there was a strong dissenting opinion from Judge David Sentelle. In his dissent, Sentelle wrote, “The record offers essentially undisputed evidence of the appellants’ intent to engage in gun-related conduct prohibited by the challenged Code provisions. Appellants adequately allege and argue that this conduct is protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.â€
Sentelle alluded to a Supreme Court ruling that noted, “When the plaintiff has alleged an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder, he should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief.â€
While Halbrook is weighing his options, and Levy is prepared to move forward with his case, Congress is still considering legislation that might strike down the 29-year-old ban. Last year, the House voted 250-171 to strike the ban down, over objections from the District government, congressional anti-gunners such as Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), and from the District’s non-voting House delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton.
It will be up to the Senate to take up the issue.
“This is far from being over,†Halbrook said.
_______
PS - this is really funny. I'm working on a book chapter that describes Masters and Johnson's stages of orgasm. I forgot that I had that copied rather than the article. When I pasted, I got SEX - not guns. Glad I didn't hit the send button to quickly. Talk about an ND.