Not so - the USSC took that power in Marbury v. Madison.
That brings us to the Parker case. The named plaintiff, Shelly Parker, lives in the high crime area of DC and has been threatened by thugs and drug dealers. She wants to be able to protect herself and she sued the city government over the gun ban. It’s shocking to realize that in one of the most violent cities in America, a woman is denied the tool that might save her life.
True enough, but Sandy leaves out that her part of the suit was dismissed - it was a security officer who was also one of the plaintiffs who actually won it, a tribute to the attorney who plotted strategy in this case.
Regardless of whether the full DC Circuit Court hears the case en banc, the losing party will certainly appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
While I'd like to see that, I don't agree. Of course, the plaintiffs will appeal if they lose. However, the DC gov't will be under enormous pressure from the national anti-gunners to not appeal, because they fear that a declaration that the 2nd protects an individual right is the death knell of gun control (and I believe that to be a correct analysis). Plus, who knows, maybe Stevens will be gone by the time the case gets to the USSC?
Maybe Sandy can explain why the NRA is strongly pushing a Congressional bill that would remove the DC ban - and simultaneously make the Parker case moot? It would seem that the best strategy is to: 1) See what happens in the court(s); and 2) if our side loses, THEN push a bill through Congress to help DC residents. If the votes are there, the votes are there - and perhaps a loss in the USSC would mobilize lots of support to kill gun control via legislation.
Mooting out Parker would be a huge mistake - it is damned near a perfect case, since it involves an actual ban (not mere "reasonable restrictions") on gun ownership, and naturally leads to a decision on the question of whether the right protected by the 2nd is an individual or collective one (and I still don't even understand the concept of a "collective right" that cannot be enforced by any individual through the courts because of lack of standing - but that's another issue). Further, ALL of the plaintiffs in Parker are law-abiding citizens, so there's no chance that a court would rule against them using the reasoning that "it is reasonable to regulate guns so that scumbags like this guy can't get them."
Sandy, get on the phone and tell the NRA to hold off on the DC Personal Protection Act until the courts rule on Parker. To NOT do that, to allow this bill to go forward, it to stick a knife in the heart of efforts to protect our most valuable Constitutional right.
Death knell? Why do you believe this to be correct? Every state already protects an individual right. Some cities, like Chicago, don't protect the right to keep and bear a handgun, so certainly those laws would change.
The Parker court admitted that the government can still set reasonable restrictions -- they even said the second amendment doesn't protect concealed carry! Death knell indeed.
I thought the Parker court addressed that -- they essentially said that it was wrong for the other courts to reject cases for lack of standing because that action pre-judged the outcome of the case!
If the U.S. Supreme Court is to determine either a collective right or an individual right, they certainly can't reject a plaintiff who is representing an individual right because of standing.
I agree. Thanks for the account of the aged Sam Whittemore.