Quantcast

DC CIRCUIT COURT STRIKES DOWN GUN LAW ON 2A GROUNDS

Discussion in 'Legal' started by balletto, Mar 9, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sharps-shooter

    Sharps-shooter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Messages:
    488
    The devil called...

    I just got off the phone with the devil.:evil:

    He says it's all frozen up down there, and the pipes are busted. First snowfall they've had in years.

    No doubt the weather will warm up soon enough,and the plumber will come fix the pipes.

    In the meantime, a warm congratulations to the people of the newly liberated DC.


    p.s. He apologizes for making Zumbo type that stuff about Ar's.
     
  2. Car Knocker

    Car Knocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    3,809
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Nothing has changed in D.C. until this decision is allowed to stand. That may be some years down the road.
     
  3. JLStorm

    JLStorm Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,131
    Or never:( :barf:
     
  4. LawBot5000

    LawBot5000 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    653
    Location:
    Florida mostly
    Hey I just learned something yummy.

    Anyone who is harmed by a federal law can bring suit in two places. Where the harm occurred and in the DC Circuit.

    Even if the supreme court denies certiorari, we can start challening federal gun control laws immediately in the DC Circuit. And given the extremely conservative/libertarian makeup of the DC Circuit, that is very encouraging.
     
  5. 57Coastie

    57Coastie Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    151
    Location:
    Texas
    LawBot5000 says,
    With respect, may I request your source for that rather broad piece of advice?

    Should anyone be interested, here you can find a calendar for the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and real-time internet access to oral arguments before this appellate court. I would not be surprised to see Parker pop up on the calendar again soon, and there may be an interesting argument which you might be able to hear which, if nothing else, should help to clarify this decision for you right from the source.

    Jim
     
  6. LawBot5000

    LawBot5000 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    653
    Location:
    Florida mostly
    26 USC 1391 (e)
    Guess where the director of the ATF and the attorney general all reside for purposes of this statute? The same place as all the other agency heads- the District of Columbia.

    I hope that people show restraint in filing lawsuits if the supreme court denies cert. The proper way to do this involves serious preparation before the suit is brought. You need good plaintiffs, good facts and good lawyers. I have no doubt the team that brought Parker to fruition will get busy bringing more cases if the supreme court denies cert. Nothing we can do now except wait.
     
  7. Mazeman

    Mazeman Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2007
    Messages:
    113
    Location:
    NH
    A Thank You

    I hope everyone will consider contributing to the Cato Institute as a way of saying "Thank You" for helping us get this great decision.

    I realize it's just one victory in a long war, bu that's all the more reason to contribute.
     
  8. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    Cato Institute: I honestly was not sure when they were testifying to congress in 2005 pushing NOT to get them to repeal DCs gun laws if this would work. I heard the argument and didn't rush to judgement even if I was a little steamed.

    Some wise and patient people over there to see how this would be much more far reaching and effective than congress simply repealing the laws. Also persistent. They do good work over there.
     
  9. 57Coastie

    57Coastie Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    151
    Location:
    Texas
    LawBot500 says,
    In fairness I will assume that you meant to reference 28 USC 1391 (e). 1391 of course goes to jurisdiction to try cases brought in federal court only on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, and then goes on to your provision.

    Your transition from your earlier statement that "anyone who is harmed by a federal law can bring suit where the harm occurred and in the DC Circuit" was disingenuous. Did you mean to say "in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia?" Even if you did, your broad all-encompassing position is more than just misleading.

    I see nothing to be gained by our continuing a legal debate in public, but in self-defense I am entitled to say "you started it." To continue on with this here will undoubtedly just further confuse it and layman readers. Volumes have been written about what this statute means. I will be glad to continue it in private if you wish, if this is in fact a legal debate. You will find that I am open to email and PM communications.

    With respect,

    Jim
     
  10. TacMedic4450

    TacMedic4450 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    53
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Wow I never thought I would see "you started it" on here lol!
     
  11. LawBot5000

    LawBot5000 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    653
    Location:
    Florida mostly
    Yeah, I meant 28 USC. The tax code has surprisingly little to say about questions of venue. It was a typo.

    And I think youre nit picking. Where else would you bring a federal suit in the DC Circuit but in the District Court? I think everyone knows that the Circuit Court of Appeals doesnt hear trials. Anyone who doesnt know this is probably not going to have more than a passing interest in this discussion anyway.

    Also, 1391 isnt entirely about diversity jurisidction cases: (a) is about diversity actions while the other sections including (e) include 1331 (federal question) actions which we all know includes APA and 1983 type actions.

    Anyway, you didnt substantially disagree with anything I said, all you did was criticize me for omitting details that should have been be obvious anyway. The simple fact remains that a denial of cert will invite challenges against federal gun control laws. The supreme court doesnt have to take this case for it to have nationwide gun control implications. That news is worth mentioning here, even to laymen.
     
  12. 57Coastie

    57Coastie Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    151
    Location:
    Texas
    LawBot5000 says,
    I agree with you entirely, and if the Court denies cert it too will of course also know that, and it is often at least suspected of denying cert in order to troll for seeing how the issue washes out amongst the circuits. Their decisions on cert, as you know, are affected by not only splits in the circuits, but also its judgment as to how significant the issue is. I suspect we will relatively soon see whether the latter consideration carries the day on the petition for cert which appears inevitable, regardless of the preliminaries.

    When those other cases work their way up let us pray that they are the "right" cases. I will not live long enough to see this end if the Court is handed cases which they can avoid with side issues such as standing.

    Jim
     
  13. LawBot5000

    LawBot5000 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    653
    Location:
    Florida mostly
    Yeah, the next year or so should be fun.

    The cool thing about this case is that the supreme court can't piss on the 2nd amendment simply by dodging in one of its typical ways (ie- standing, as you mentioned). If they do nothing, we win. If they dodge, we win. The only way we lose is if they confront the case head on and overturn what is IMO a very solid opinion.

    If anything, the dissenting opinion is a bonus because it is so laughably bad. A well written dissent could really have made this a much tougher battle. Fortunately for us, the devil seems to have sent one of his junior associates to possess the dissent's pen.
     
  14. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    423
    Location:
    Washington state
    Of course it's possible. I kinda expect it will be appealed en banc, but I'm not sok doom-and-gloom as some folks. The DC court of Appeals may well take the case en banc. I'm not so sure they'd reverse,, especially since Silberman is a senior judge on that court.

    Then it goes to SCOTUS. And they either take the case or let it stand.

    The anti-gunners are likely just as spooked about the prospects as many in our camp are. After all..they've pretty much spilled their guts about this: If SCOTUS affirms.. they have a great fear this could scuttle scores if not hundreds of gun laws.

    SCOTUS striking down gun laws on 2A grounds terrifies the other side, don't kid yourself.
     
  15. Deavis

    Deavis Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,424
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Very nice! Snowboarding in Czech, fast passport checks at the borders, rolling 220 on the Autobahn, and I come home to a positive Parker decision. The only thing to top it off would be, oh wait nevermind, my fiancee did bring a bottle of Crown Reserve and all the Burkett DVDs over here with her for her week long stay. Speaking of which, what a perfect weekend :cool:
     
  16. 57Coastie

    57Coastie Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    151
    Location:
    Texas
    LawBot5000 says,
    Agreed, and of course your "we" is not limited to the Parkers and the Hellers and the rest in DC. The effect of this decision on what happens when similar issues hit the other circuits after a "do nothing" or a "dodge" should be very salutary, particularly as it comes out of the DC circuit.

    Thanx,

    Jim
     
  17. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    We win for now...

    Nothing to say something else won't wind up in SC later under less favorable conditions and get this turned around later.

    Still this is the best we could have hoped for at this time.
     
  18. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    One issue with bringing suit in D.C. is that you will face a tougher test for standing than you would in another district court (See Seegars). I can definitely see 922(o) on the line though.
     
  19. GRB

    GRB member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,774
    They said that so well it almost choked me up. Bless their souls for seeing it like it should be seen.

    All the best,
    GB
     
  20. Warren

    Warren Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Messages:
    2,454
    Location:
    Northern California
    If SCOTUS takes the case and upholds it, does that mean that only Parker's issue will be affected?

    That is the law he appealed will be overturned but nothing else will be touched?

    Which would mean that every particular anti-gun law would have to be challenged on an individual basis?

    Is there any chance of SCOTUS saying ALL gun laws are UC and therefore void?

    If it must be done on a per law basis it seems unfair as they could overturn all RKBA (as some have said in this thread) with one decision but they won't uphold all RKBA with one decision.
     
  21. 44Brent

    44Brent Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    398
    Location:
    Illinois

    57Coastie, I think you are being excessively worrisome. What are you going to do if someone offers to sign up for duty in Iraq - wet your pants?
     
  22. LawBot5000

    LawBot5000 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    653
    Location:
    Florida mostly
    I think a denied Form 1 to make a machine gun will be sufficient for standing. It's basically Heller's denied pistol permit all over again. I feel better already.

    Regarding sporting purposes, couldnt you pay the tax to transfer a DD shotgun and then sue for the money back?

    I guess you could argue that the second amendment protects private access to firearms for purposes that include self defense and military use (basic holding of parker). Allowing easy access only to shotguns that are ineffective for self defense violates the right of individuals to have access to firearms for self defense. This right can't be satisfied by allowing access to inferior alternatives (DC law barring handguns but permitting long gun possession struck down- holding necessary to the result of parker).

    It's easy to say "the 2nd amendment isnt about hunting" but to turn it into a defensible legal rule is hard. I guess that's one of many reasons I'm not on the supreme court.
     
  23. Igloodude

    Igloodude Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    744
    Location:
    southern NH
    Based on everything I've read (here and elsewhere), it seems to me that if the decision isn't overturned by the DC District Court en banc, then DC's safest course from the standpoint of national gun control would be to not appeal the case up to SCOTUS. By not doing so, they leave the circumstance at 2 circuit courts coming down on each side, and Washington D.C. would be forced only to become may-issue regarding permits to gun-owners to keep firearms in their homes, which is effectively where NYC is at right now. And given DC's lack of FFLs, there wouldn't be a substantial upsurge in legally-owned pistols anytime soon.

    On the other hand, the already-expressed collective outrage from DC's mayor and the Brady/VPC folks will in effect force their hand. They can hardly back down from a SCOTUS appeal if it is so inherently obvious that RKBA is a "civic" or collective right, yes? :neener:
     
  24. 57Coastie

    57Coastie Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    151
    Location:
    Texas
    44Brent asks,
    Somehow I managed to avoid that, Brent, even when my eldest son insisted on leaving college as he neared his masters degree, to return to the USMC when George I's mideast war began, although he had already served his obligation and was exempt from recall. He went back to the Marines' First Tank Battalion as a sergeant. If you recall, his unit was placed south of Kuwait City by Tommy Franks as a "diversion." They proceeded to capture Kuwait City so quickly that it fouled up the army's "grand plan," and it was over before the army's end run could take place. It was really embarrassing to Franks. He was just left to pick up the pieces.

    As Warren so rightly says in his post just above yours,
    I think Warren says it all, although I doubt he means it quite as I do when I say it. All my life I have responsibly owned, collected and used firearms, both for recreation and in public service. All my life I have been offended by people calling me a "gun nut" -- people having the political leverage to prevent the Second Amendment from being read by the decision-makers as I read it. Every time I read something on this forum or elsewhere which I feel encourages these people to really and sincerely consider all of us to be "gun nuts," I cringe as I see our cause set back. I feel so very strongly that we should stop bitching and work to set the stage for more decisions like Parker that I cannot help but speak up. And I will continue to do so.

    With respect,

    Jim
     
  25. gunsmith

    gunsmith member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2003
    Messages:
    5,906
    Location:
    Reno, Nevada
    I need to be cheered up

    can someone explain to a layman like me in plain English what good stuff can happen soon as a result of this decision?

    Please skip the doom and gloom, I am already worked up over another thread.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice