DC circuit goes "quack"

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Brett Bellmore

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Messages
979
Location
Capac, Michigan
They just ducked the challenge to DC gun laws. Refused to take it for lack of standing, because the plaintifs hadn't already been charged with violating the law.

It isn't going to be easy to find plaintifs willing to gamble almost certain loss of ALL their rights, and a stay in prison, for the mere chance that the court might deign to listen to them.

Wanna bet the Justice Department was telling them to refuse the case, too. :cuss:
 
Not really; That "petition the government" business just means that they can't pass a law against you writing a letter to the President or members of Congress. You can even get together with other people to do it, without being charged with conspiracy.

The First amendment never promised that they'd read the petition.
 
I'm sure we can scare up a lawyer, but that is pretty much my understanding of how the legal system works. Its a criminal issue...someone needs to be charged with a crime first.

Mike
 
I wonder who appointed those judges.
Click to expand...

STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS was appointed by Ronald Reagan in June 1986. He wrote the opinion.
DAVID S. TATEL was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994.
DAVID B. SENTELLE was appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1987. He wrote the dissenting opinion.


For what its worth, I posted my initial thoughts here..

First, this is pure and utter bull???? and a very convenient way for the court to sidestep an issue it doesn't feel comfortable addressing.

Second, part of me thinks that this is a brilliant strategic move (DISCLAIMER: I've been accused of turning lemons into lemonade before) that is going to force the mainstream media and other traditionally non RKBA forces to join the fight on OUR SIDE.
Click to expand...

I've now read the opinion and dissent three times and haven't changed my mind, but expect to have more to say tomorrow on the issue of judicial review (of which I happen to be involved in the litigation of a case facing a similar scenario right now).
 
from my quick glance

The opinion seems to "reformat" the trial court opinion (to use an IT term) and bring things back to square one, as if there was no opinion issued by the trial court on the shotgun lady's case (whose complaint asserted that the unloaded-and-locked-up law in DC violated the 2d Amendment).

I guess that's better than nothing . . .
 
Wanna bet the Justice Department was telling them to refuse the case, too.
Click to expand...


I doubt very much that, were this to occur, it would have the desired effect.

The Supreme Court has tremendous discretion, and is not subordinate to the DoJ.
 
Yeah ... reminded me of a telephone support line that included an option "press 8 to hear a duck quack."

I read the opinion today ... it was a cop-out, saying it's OK for law to vaguely threaten people's rights so long as an arrest isn't scheduled.

SCOTUS really should take this to clarify the issue of "standing". This just isn't tolerable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top