DC CIRCUIT COURT STRIKES DOWN GUN LAW ON 2A GROUNDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
DC officials claim that they will continue to enforce existing laws. If these laws were just ruled unconstitutional, where does that leave DC gun owners?
Click to expand...
Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ...
 
One thing they can do

They can put their long guns back together and lock and load. Anyone who wants to get rich can call the cops and tell them that they are exercising their 2A rights and MOLON LABE!

When they show put on your happy face and go with them. They can drop a lawsuit the next day.
 
I don't think ANYONE has mentioned that the ENTIRE FACT that a decision was rendered pro or anti (iow, at all) revolves around one simple thing - the fact that one appellant was denied a DC permit!!

Page 8 of the PDF:

"The noteworthy distinction in this case—a distinction mentioned in appellants’ complaint and pressed by them on appeal—is that appellant Heller has applied for and been denied a registration certificate to own a handgun, a fact not present in Seegars. The denial of the gun license is significant; it constitutes an injury independent of the District’s prospective enforcement of its gun laws, and an injury to which the stringent requirements for pre-enforcement standing under Navegar and Seegars would not apply. Since D.C. Code § 22-4504 (prohibition against carrying a pistol without a license) and D.C. Code § 7-2507.02 (disassembly/trigger lock requirement) would amount to further conditions on the certificate Heller desires, Heller’s standing to pursue the license denial would subsume these other claims too.

This is not a new proposition. We have consistently treated a license or permit denial pursuant to a state or federal administrative scheme as an Article III injury. See, e.g., Cassell"


IOW - short of that, the DC court would have refused to accept the appellants standing!!! This is sickening - one is afraid to pursue a course of action because of being prosecuted, so one does not, and one then lacks standing!

What if a governmental entity had no permits to apply for? How would one gain standing??

Enlightenment on the aforementioned subject would be appreciated.


BB62
 
I'm not all that enlightened, but I'd think that in the absence of a permit process one would gain standing only by arrest for possession of an illegal firearm. Of course, while this case was in progress, rules regarding standing got relaxed somewhat anyway.
 
The permit office was a sham. Think of it like the old 'literacy tests' that were used in the old days to deny blacks the right to vote.

DC could claim there was a process to get a permit but none were actually issued. Therefore guns were not 'banned' but really were banned. The irony in this is that if they had even slightly less crazy laws than this would likely not have come to a head. Few sane people would argue that denying a LEO in good standing a gun permit is reasonable.

I wonder:
1. DC appeals
2. They win En Banc reversal
3. While on reversal DC modifies the crazy laws to remove the standing of the parties
4. The SCOTUS refuses to hear the case for lack of standing and the reversal stands?

Is this possible?
 
IOW - short of that, the DC court would have refused to accept the appellants standing!!! This is sickening - one is afraid to pursue a course of action because of being prosecuted, so one does not, and one then lacks standing!
Click to expand...

This is a standard unique to the D.C. Circuit and follows from an earlier gun case where Navegear Inc (the maker of the Tec-9) sued over the 1994 AWB. In most other circuits, all you have to show is that you have a credible threat of injury (in this case a credible fear of prosecution) based on the law. In those circuits the fact that the law has made certain behavior illegal and you engage in that behavior is usually enough to get you through the door, even if you have not been threatened with arrest (that is the short and simple version and leaves out a lot of nuance).

The D.C. circuit has modified this to say that prosecution must be imminent and you must be able to show you have been singled out for prosecution before they will consider it an injury. This is at odds with case law for most other circuits and goes beyond the standard the Supreme Court laid out; but the Supreme Court has not reversed them on this standard yet.
 
I wonder:
1. DC appeals
2. They win En Banc reversal
3. While on reversal DC modifies the crazy laws to remove the standing of the parties
4. The SCOTUS refuses to hear the case for lack of standing and the reversal stands?
Click to expand...

I think that what you say is ENTIRELY possible, and is part of the reason I posted what I did.

The DC court needs to be reversed (or whatever the term is) on their usage of a different "standing" standard.


BB62
 
Don't think DC could remove the standing issue short of total repeal of the "no new licenses" law. Seems to me they're trying to hit that with talk of a 3-month amnesty, but that's plainly just a temporary scam that hopefully SCOTUS would be smart enough to see thru.
 
The verdict only covered possession at home. I don't know if a SCOTUS verdict would extend beyond that; if a court is forced into a position (as opposed to a vehicle for happy activism), they usually tailor the verdict very narrowly. Certainly would be a powerful basis for further suits, but I imagine courts will make repeal of gun control laws as difficult as possible, requiring a law-by-law, challenge-standing, case-by-case process.
 
hmmm. When the courts ruled that those black school kids could indeed go to the same school as whites in Alabama, and the governor refused to admit them, wasn't the courts ruling backed up by troops?

I'd volunteer instantly to be in the militia that is sent to Washington DC to enforce the courts ruling that ordinary citizens have the right to keep and bear arms!
 
IOW - short of that, the DC court would have refused to accept the appellants standing!!! This is sickening - one is afraid to pursue a course of action because of being prosecuted, so one does not, and one then lacks standing!

What if a governmental entity had no permits to apply for? How would one gain standing??

Enlightenment on the aforementioned subject would be appreciated
Click to expand...

I agree.....

Does standing come from a Govt "process" Or Does do you have standing since birth (because this is a Right)?

Do you Have the protection already and one does not need to show standing (page 46 of ruling "That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution...")

If this Right existed before the Creation of the Govt and the Constitution.......why do we need to show/prove standing??
 
Flechette says,
I'd volunteer instantly to be in the militia that is sent to Washington DC to enforce the courts ruling that ordinary citizens have the right to keep and bear arms!
Click to expand...
Irresponsible statements like this, even if made in jest, are precisely one of the reasons why Parker has been so long coming, and statements like this will deserve a great deal of blame when this decision is reversed. Are we attempting to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory?

Are you suggesting that someone is ignoring a court order here, as George Wallace did, in the case you cite? The only order I can find in Parker is one directed at the District Court, which is ordered to grant Heller's motion for summary judgment. Since that is the only order issued by the Court of Appeals panel, then you must be suggesting that the District Judge is in violation of the order. Are you suggesting taking up arms against the United States District Judge?

With respect, let me assure you that there are people in our country who would read your statement exactly like that, and I know for a fact that forums like this are read by those not sharing our interests.

Jim
 
xd9fan asks,
why do we need to show/prove standing??
Click to expand...
One reason is that our courts are not in the habit of answering hypothetical questions, the answers to which are not forged in the fire of a courtroom trial. When courts answer hypothetical questions the Rule of Law goes right out the window. You might say that the principle of law here is that if you have a justiciable question, put your liberty where your mouth is.

Governor Wallace was mentioned earlier. Regardless of what one thinks of him, he backed up his mouth with his actions. As did the freedom marchers at about the same time.

Jim
 
Flechette says,
Quote:
I'd volunteer instantly to be in the militia that is sent to Washington DC to enforce the courts ruling that ordinary citizens have the right to keep and bear arms!

Irresponsible statements like this, even if made in jest, are precisely one of the reasons why Parker has been so long coming, and statements like this will deserve a great deal of blame when this decision is reversed. Are we attempting to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory?

Are you suggesting that someone is ignoring a court order here, as George Wallace did, in the case you cite? The only order I can find in Parker is one directed at the District Court, which is ordered to grant Heller's motion for summary judgment. Since that is the only order issued by the Court of Appeals panel, then you must be suggesting that the District Judge is in violation of the order. Are you suggesting taking up arms against the United States District Judge?

With respect, let me assure you that there are people in our country who would read your statement exactly like that, and I know for a fact that forums like this are read by those not sharing our interests.

Jim
Click to expand...

Jim,

I had no intention of offending you or being irresponsible. My statement was actually quite truthful; if the courts can send troops to enforce a court ruling (like they did with integration) then it is perfectly fine for them to send troops to enforce the excercisng of other individual rights when the local government refuses to follow the ruling. In this case, the DC mayor had openly stated that he would do everything to continue to enforce the DC handgun ban which was just ruled unConstitutional. This is a direct analog to Governor Wallace refusing to let black school children into white schools.

I find it interesting that liberals feel completely justified to travel from one state to another to push liberty (like all of the equal rights people going to the Deep South during the 60's) but when a libertarian or conservative suggests doing it they are viewed as "irresponsible" or militant.

My contention is that we don't win battles by backing down. We need to enforce the Constitution with vigor. Being lax and "reasonable" is what got us into this mess in the firstplace.
 
Flechette responds,
In this case, the DC mayor had openly stated that he would do everything to continue to enforce the DC handgun ban which was just ruled unConstitutional. This is a direct analog to Governor Wallace refusing to let black school children into white schools.
Click to expand...
Flechette -- I am not offended. I respect your position. I did not say you were irresponsible. I suggested that one statement was irresponsible. If it is not apparent already I will admit that I enjoy a good debate, but I have often taken the position myself that we sometimes do things, or say things, which are in my opinion counterproductive to our goal.

I will close by pointing out that Governor Wallace was in violation of a court order when the troops marched in. Nobody has suggested that the mayor of DC is in violation of a court order. He has every right to continue to enforce the current law of DC until an order is issued telling him to not do so. I strongly suspect that the next decision in this case will be the granting of a stay pending en banc or an appeal to the Supremes. When that stay is issued the gun control laws in DC will be in full force and effect, as they are now.

Of course competing with the issuance of a stay order for the honor of being the next judicial action is the District Court granting Heller's motion for summary judgment. If what I would anticipate would be the District Court's order that Heller be issued a registration certificate to own a handgun and possess it in his home (which appears to be his prayer for relief) is defied by the DC mayor, then we might justify sending in the troops.:)

Meanwhile, it looks to me that the other five appellants could also compete for this honor by running into the courthouse to seek a court order.

Jim
 
Last edited:
The verdict only covered possession at home. I don't know if a SCOTUS verdict would extend beyond that;
Click to expand...
It would likely be a seperate case. Since defending yourself no matter where you are could be argued to be constitutional, I'd argue that it is protected, and so you can't keep people from carrying. They could argue that prohibiting concealed carry is allowed, so long as you're allowed to open carry. And you can't charge someone for defending themselves, the gov would have to prove malice.

So, you shoot someone in your house. There's reasonable doubt that you were trying to murder them, so you're free.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/w...ner=permalink&exprod=permalink&pagewanted=all

The majority in yesterday’s decision pointed to a 1998 dissent in which “at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read ‘bear arms’ in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering.” They were former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died in 2005, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and David H. Souter.

So there is reason to believe that 3 remaining justice on SCOTUS are reasonably in line with the appellate decision wrt DC Gun Ban.

Alito has made comments/judgements that are consistent with 2A conveying an Induvidual Right.

I would bet that Roberts would have to side with Induvidual RKBA also.

I believe that it is reasonable to be optimistic that SCOTUS will find in favor of Ind RKBA with reasonable restrictions by the states/fed consistent with restrictions that are applied to 1A

Now is the time to recruit friends and teach them to shoot/take interest in the 2A Rights....every single Pro 2A Vote is going to count big time in 2008.

As per my Sig: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
 
Been reading the decision. I like this:
Amendment—“The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are
reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”—indicates
that the authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of
distinguishing between “the people,” on the one hand, and “the
states,” on the other. The natural reading of “the right of the
people” in the Second Amendment would accord with usage
elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

This thing is just full of ammo. I wonder if any circuits would be willing to rule differently on hearing that.
 
The majority in yesterday’s decision pointed to a 1998 dissent in which “at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read ‘bear arms’ in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering.” They were former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died in 2005, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and David H. Souter.

So there is reason to believe that 3 remaining justice on SCOTUS are reasonably in line with the appellate decision wrt DC Gun Ban.
Click to expand...

Actually, the majority pointed out that those three agreed that "carrying arms" was synonmyous with "bearing arms" in that case to suggest that the District's contention that bear arms only had a military meaning had no basis.

The case was Muscarello v. U.S., 524 U.S. 125 (1998) and the relevant language was "It is uncontested that § 924(c)(1) applies when the defendant bears a firearm, i.e., carries the weapon on or about his person “for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in case of a conflict.”" (Id. at 139-40).

So all that means is that Ginsburg and Souter once said the statement above. It would be a big leap to go from their comment in that case (which was about whether a guy with a firearm in the back of a truck and some drugs was "carrying" a firearm for purposes of the law) to a conclusion that they support an individual right for the Second.

Ginsburg has a little left-wing libertarianism in her, so she could conceivably go for an individual 2A; but I wouldn't bet money on that possibility.
 
Approved

I am pleased.

I have the same concerns that many do, that some judicial sleight-of-hand could be used to "spike the guns" of this decision.

Even should this come to pass, the popular assertion of judicial constancy in the "collective right" viewpoint is now effectively interrupted.

There is now a body of current jurisprudence to which one may point when challenged with "Oh, yeah? Show me a case where that's true!"

We now have that case. It is as well reasoned a case as I've seen.

It is my belief that a number of our THR brethren drafted this and offered it to the court to save them the trouble of hammering out the rationale.

You know who you are.

Thanks, guys.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

danez71
  • Locked
Federal court strikes down DC anti-concealed carry law
Replies
20
Views
2K
Elkins45
Elkins45
pdsmith505
  • Locked
DC Circuit strikes down "May Issue" carrying schemes
Replies
8
Views
1K
Landric
Landric
J
  • Locked
What are the most gun-friendly Circuit Court districts?
Replies
7
Views
341
green-grizzly
G
D
  • Locked
Court Strikes Down Gun Ban in Nation's Capital
Replies
5
Views
570
cpaspr
C
F
  • Locked
Bush DOJ supports DC gun ban!
2 3
Replies
58
Views
3K
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top