DC appeals Parker case to SCOTUS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brett, it might just be that the Supremes recognize that this could be a historic case and want both sides to be well prepared, so that later no one could say that there was a lack of parity, thus leaving the issue open.
Click to expand...

This is for the certiori petition, not the actual hearing on merits. Proving that a circuit split on the basic meaning of a fundamental civil liberty ought to be heard doesn't require extensive research. It ought to be a slam dunk no matter how lousy their petition is, the Court shouldn't even be seriously entertaining not taking the appeal.
 
the Court shouldn't even be seriously entertaining not taking the appeal.
Click to expand...

Remember, even denying cert is a win for us:

A) It lets the strikedown of the handgun ban stand
B) The forces of organized gun bigotry rely heavily on SCOTUS denying cert on all the appeals from circuit courts that subscribe to the collective theory, citing it as evidence of SCOTUS's approval of the collective theory. This will no longer be true.

Either way, it ain't over, the real work can (finally!) begin.

Parker is just the end of the beginning of the fight to restore the second amendment.
 
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.
Click to expand...

The news is reporting Chief Justice Roberts has collapsed in his home.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20039923/

Hopefully nothing serious, but this concerns me especially with the recent statement by Schumer that no more of Bush's nominations would be affirmed.
 
The article makes it sound more like "fell down" than "collapsed".

Shucks, I "fall down" on occasion, but I have never "collapsed".
 
Its not being reported as a seizure, which is definitely more along the lines of "collapsed" than "fell down"
 
Its not being reported as a seizure, which is definitely more along the lines of "collapsed" than "fell down"
Click to expand...

Just caught that. The article says unexplained seizures generally mean you're an epileptic. He's had two now.
 
From what I have heard, he is fine now. Methinks that the media were a bit sensationalist in reporting this story.
 
Here's a blast from the past that someone posted on my forum the other day:

http://www.machinegunsammy.com/

Old news, to be sure. But still entertaining to look back on how afraid the VPC and "Gun Guys" were of Alito becoming a Justice. 'Tis also quite reassuring to know he'll be hearing Parker (assuming they grant cert), and perhaps even the '86 MG ban after that. :D
 
Just caught that. The article says unexplained seizures generally mean you're an epileptic. He's had two now.
Click to expand...

Yeah at two idiopathic seizures, I think they have to take away your drivers license (or at least notify the DMV). I wonder if they'll put him on phenobarb or not.
 
Yeah at two idiopathic seizures, I think they have to take away your drivers license (or at least notify the DMV). I wonder if they'll put him on phenobarb or not.
Click to expand...

Probably not if the first seizure was years ago, and if there's no underlying medical condition causing the seizures (e.g. diabetes, brain tumor, etc). One of my GSD's is prone to seizures and is on phenobarb, but he seizes almost weekly without it.
 
People with seizure disorders can drive. It is State law that governs this. In Arkansas if you have been seizure free for one year you can drive. If I was him I would not take medication. I bet that will be what his physicians recommend also. The side affects would not outweigh the benefit if you only had 2 seizures in that time period. I would not take the medication if I only had one seizure a year.
 
I thought Justices have use of a driver & vehicle, or is that only for official business?

Kharn
 
Things should get interesting shortly before Sept. 8; until then, it's all just speculation. There really isn't much to talk about until DC releases their formal request for appeal (which, perversely, could be little more than "we want to appeal").
 
ctdonath wrote:

There really isn't much to talk about until DC releases their formal request for appeal (which, perversely, could be little more than "we want to appeal").
Click to expand...

It will include their specific assignments of error. The one that interests me, or concerns me the most, is the assertion that the 2nd has no applicability to DC. To be honest, I have not really considered that angle before, it appears to be somewhat of a reverse incorporation argument... I will need to research that much more. All other issues that they may raise I feel quite comfortable with and believe that SCOTUS will come down with a favorable ruling. Office pool selection:

6-3 in favor of individual right.

Further prediction:

Roberts will write the opinion.
 
If DC appeals on the basis that the 2nd does not apply to DC would that also indicate that "they" do not think the rest of the BOR applies in DC?
 
RoadkingLarry wrote:

If DC appeals on the basis that the 2nd does not apply to DC would that also indicate that "they" do not think the rest of the BOR applies in DC?
Click to expand...

First, I GUARANTEE you that it will be one of their specific assignments of error.

Second, I GUARANTEE you that it will not be their only assignment of error.

They will not argue that the rest of the BOR's do not apply to DC, but will argue that some of the BOR's do not apply to DC. As I indicated, it appears to be somewhat of a reverse incorporation argument. What I mean by that is that SCOTUS has indicated that some, but not all of the BOR's are binding upon the states. For example, the requirement of a grand jury indictment is not a mandatory provision applicable to the states, even though it is applicable to the feds.
 
Bartholomew Roberts wrote:

So you think both Souter and Kennedy will come out for an individual right or were you thinking a more suprising flip (Ginsburg)?
Click to expand...

Ginsburg is my surprise 6th justice. Why? Take a look at her dissent in United States v. Muscarello, 524 U.S. 125 (1998):

"Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ("keep and bear Arms") (emphasis added) and Black's Law Dictionary, at 214, indicate: "wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=524&page=125

BTW Scalia, joined in her dissent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Interesting developments in the Parker appeal
2 3
Replies
70
Views
6K
alan
A
S
  • Locked
DC Court of Appeals: "DC GUN BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL"!!!
Replies
0
Views
402
SHOOT1SAM
S
JTHunter
  • Locked
Two 2A cases go to SCOTUS
Replies
6
Views
1K
bushmaster1313
B
G
  • Locked
D.C. Circuit Court Affirms Earlier Parker Ruling
Replies
1
Views
290
jpk1md
J
M
  • Locked
Parker Update: Levy Calls Out DC Mayor Fenty
Replies
6
Views
715
mons meg
M
Back
Top