DC appeals Parker case to SCOTUS

[K-Romulus]

Scotusblog is hosting a copy of DC's petition for an extension to file its appeal:
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/Heller%20applic%20for%20time%207-16-07.pdf

Outside lawyers wo co-authored on to the brief (and their law firms):

Thomas Goldstein (Akin Gump)

Walter Dellinger, Matthew M. Shors, Mark Davies, Geoffrey Wyatt (O'Melveny & Myers)

Akin and O'Melveny are pretty big international law firms with established appellate practices. ("International" in that they have worldwide offices) This ought to be good as far as getting the USSC to at least grant cert.

ETA:
The DC petition says the original due date is August 6.

They seem to be framing the issue as "scope of reasonable regulations." As they describe the case record to date:

The central (law) at issue in this litigation is a law permitting the registration and possession of an unlimited number of rifles and shotguns but generally prohibiting the registration, and therfore posession of pistols

and

(A)lthough the majority accepted the proposition that the Second Amendment permits "reasonable restrictions" on firearm use and possession, it held that the challenged laws are unreasonable."

And as a backup they framed the Parker dissent as stating that Miller said

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms relates to those Militia whose continued vitality is required to safeguard the individual states."

 

[Feral Cowboy]

Assuming SCOTUS hears it and there is no turnover in the court, this is about one man, Arthur Kennedy. IMHO the status right now is 4-4 with Kennedy ( the appointment that Reagan screwed up on) as the one who will decide. He is sometime an originalist but more often a "living constitution" activist interpreter. He holds our freedom in his hands.
If the second amendmendment goes so go our other freedoms to a tyrannical (socialist) government. And unless we dig some really deep holes, we are not going to have anything to stop 'em with.

 

[BB62]

In the USC, are the plaintiffs (Parker) allowed to add further research/historical information, etc. to the case information that was presented to the lower court?

 

[Deanimator]

Assuming SCOTUS hears it and there is no turnover in the court, this is about one man, Arthur Kennedy.

That's ANTHONY Kennedy.

Arthur Kennedy was an actor.

 

[K-Romulus]

BB62 In the USC, are the plaintiffs (Parker) allowed to add further research/historical information, etc. to the case information that was presented to the lower court?

Though not on the USSC bar, I generally get the impression that the facts are set but the law/policy arguments are wide open on USSC appeals.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Following the link, the basis for an extension seems to be, "We waited until the last moment, but why should this cost us anything?" Certainly, they don't cite anything beyond their own decisions which delayed the response... I think the court would probably laugh at a private sector party that asked for an extension under such circumstances.

 

[leadcounsel]

The logic used to say that sawn off shotguns are NOT typical military hardware so they are not constitutionally protected begs the question whether, in fact, the Constitution does GUARANTEE military hardware...?

 

[vis-à-vis]

Assuming SCOTUS hears it and there is no turnover in the court, this is about one man, Arthur Kennedy. IMHO the status right now is 4-4 with Kennedy ( the appointment that Reagan screwed up on) as the one who will decide. He is sometime an originalist but more often a "living constitution" activist interpreter. He holds our freedom in his hands.
If the second amendmendment goes so go our other freedoms to a tyrannical (socialist) government. And unless we dig some really deep holes, we are not going to have anything to stop 'em with.

Can you detail who you believe will vote which way (4-4) and why you make that decision? Anybody with the name Kennedy freaks me out. I'm going to have to wiki him.

 

[Feral Cowboy]

Thanks deanimator. No wonder I keep having trouble wikiing him. I keep calling him Arthur.

For protecting 2nd as individual right:
Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts. They are strict constructionists that believe the Constitution is what it says, not what the activists want it to say. If they didn't like the 2nd amendmentment they would say repeal it, but what is, is. Their other rulings and much of their personal precedence supports individual right.

For a "collective" or militia right:
Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter (GHWB huge mistake), Stevens. They believe that the constitution is a living document and the needs of current society are the way the Constitution should be interpreted. They have always been 99.9% liberal in there opinions and some of their public pronouncements and personal precedents support the "collective" rights theory.
It boils down to 4 conservatives vs 4 liberals with ANTHONY Kennedy in the middle holding up his finger to see which way the wind blows.

 

[LAR-15]

Bush could end up appointing another SCOTUS judge at anytime.

Who is to say someone doesn't have a stroke and goes down?



Not saying I want that, just that the makeup of court could change.

Some members are old.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Feral Cowboy, we've actually had extensive threads discussing how the court might break down. It is worth noting that Souter has as many pro-gun opinions as Kennedy (and as many anti-gun opinions for that matter) and is easily just as much of a wildcard.

Like it or not, GWB has appointed two of the current justices and may yet appoint more before it is all over. He is going to have a powerful effect on this decision.

 

[Cosmoline]

Stevens (the one in the bowtie) is by far the oldest, and one of the most liberal. There's no way he'd go with us, but he's holding onto the seat until a Democrat takes the WH. Realistically, though, even if he left now GW would have a heck of a time getting a real conservative in place given his incredibly weak position and the loss of GOP power in the Senate.

I agree this is probably all about Justice Kennedy. He's a notoriously hard bird to read, but his strong interest in international law doesn't bode well. If he joins the individual rights camp, it will likely be on narrow grounds. This is one area of constitutional law that's been almost exclusively dominated by political concerns over the past 75 years, so they all have to be aware of the significance of a decision either way. And the fact that the Court hasn't addressed the Second means almost none of the Justices have ever had to face it square on in any rulings. So who knows what will happen. One of the liberals may turn out to be a big support of the individual rights theory. They've all got life tenure, and this is a novel issue for them. The split may surprise everybody.

In the end, we have to put some faith in the fab four on this one. They know Kennedy better than any of us could, and if they don't think they'll get to five I suspect they'll press to deny cert. and let the matter cook awhile longer in the circuits.

 

[Mazeman]

Here's today's Plaintiff's response to SCOTUS on why DC should NOT be granted an extension:

Link

pdf of actual opposition to extension

The battle is on!

 

[ctdonath]

Summary of DC's request for an extension: "we spent so much time deciding whether to appeal, that we didn't have time to consider what the appeal would actually be about."

Summary of the Parker team's opposition to the extension: "DC has had five years to figure out the issues, was granted a rare extension to the appeal period precisely to write it, and everyone involved - including the winning side - wants them to appeal ... so what the **** has DC been doing for the last three months?!?"

The latter practically writes the petition for the former in their conclusion:

"The factors rendering this case a worthy candidate for certiorari are well known. The case presents an issue of exceptional importance – whether an enumerated constitutional “right of the people” secures an individual right. This Court has issued no direct guidance on the topic save for one sixty-eight year-old precedent, the meaning of which is frequently claimed to be ambiguous. The federal courts of appeal, as well as state courts of last resort, are profoundly split."

Fenty must be scared silly. When the winner of a court case begs the higher court to accept an appeal, they're not just out for a win, but are prepping a huge smackdown.

 

[Travis McGee]

We'll be better off with the case decided by the present SCOTUS. If Hillary/Obama wins, we'll get another Ginsberg, then all bets are off.

 

[K-Romulus]

Who wants to take bets on:

1) USSC denying the extension?

and

2) The hue and cry to follow about how "once again, a 'right wing' court sided for special interests and against the people."

 

[coat4gun]

I have cringed for the past few years as some have complained of "Activist Judges" knowing that when the Court finally Acts for the Bill of Rights and against the Unconstitutional gun control laws, some will try to pin the "Activist Judge" title on removal of the gun laws.

People have been brainwash into thinking that this is a Democracy instead of a Constitutional Republic and therefore think that all Government is subject to the whims of the majority instead of enforcing the Constitution that is already in place.

 

[Kharn]

vis-à-vis:

No meaningful prejudice would arise from the extension, as this Court
would hear oral argument and issue its opinion in the October 2007 Term regardless of whether an extension is granted.

What does that mean?

The Court's term begins in October and ends in, IIRC, August. Their policy is to hear and rule on all cases that were granted cert by the end of the term in which they granted cert. In other words: If they accept the Parker appeal, we'll have a ruling no later than August 2008.

Kharn

 

[Matt King]

How long does the court have to decide whether or not they accept the Parker appeal?

 

[JWarren]

Matt King wrote:

How long does the court have to decide whether or not they accept the Parker appeal?

Indeed.


Could someone with his or her ear to the ground pop out some kind of tenative timeline on this?

Obviously, we can't know for certain, but someone may have insights on how long the SC usually takes.


Thanks.


-- John

 

[Igloodude]

More immediately, how much time until they decide on whether DC gets its requested 30-day extension on submitting in the first place?

 

[ProficientRifleman]

Jeez!

Was that your Mommy? Vote her out of office!

 

[Gene_WI]

I am starting to get the feeling that Fenty is doing all he can to have the case rejected. I would not be surprised if the appeal extension is not granted. That way he can just throw his hands up in the air.

 

[jlbraun]

I am starting to get the feeling that Fenty is doing all he can to have the case rejected

Quick (scary) question.

If an "accident" happens to the plaintiffs can the case still be tried before the SCOTUS?

 

[enc0re]

Call me naive, but if cert is granted, I am not concerned that the decision will be a predictable 4-4 split with Kennedy as the swing vote.

This is about an enumerated right that through historical coincidence has not yet been incorporated through the 14th. No justice will want his legacy to be defined by having denied such a right.

My money says, this will be an 8 - 1 in favor of an individual right to keep and bear arms, and I am not even sure who is going to be the opposing vote. Except for Thomas. He is my personal hero.