Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 07/16/2007 8:03:08 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last
To: admin

Admin, please append “(DC appeals Parker case to SCOTUS)” to title to assist clarity & searching.


2 posted on 07/16/2007 8:05:19 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2

Woo-hoo!

It’s about time that we get this issue resolved.


3 posted on 07/16/2007 8:08:05 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed ("We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them, I won't chip away at them" -Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2

Local government officials in Washington, D.C., announced Monday they will appeal to the Supreme Court in a major test case on the meaning of the Second Amendment. The key issue in the coming petition will be whether the Amendment protects an individual right to have guns in one’s home- an issue on which there is now a clear conflict among federal Circuit Courts.

The petition would have been due Aug. 7, but city officials said they would ask Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., for a 30-day extension of time to file the case. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and city Attorney General Linda Singer disclosed the appeal plan at a press conference, along with local Police Chief Cathy Lanier.

The D.C. Circuit Court ruled on March 9 that the Second Amendment does guarantee an individual right to possess a gun — at least within one’s own home. The case is Parker, et al., v. District of Columbia (docket 04-7041). On May 8, the Circuit Court refused by a 6-4 vote to rehear the case en banc. The mandate is scheduled to be issued Aug. 7, but will be withheld after the city files its Supreme Court petition.


4 posted on 07/16/2007 8:09:08 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed ("We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them, I won't chip away at them" -Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2

government officials unwilling to accept the Second Amendment, as written. When there is no Second, the First will be the next to go. One has to wonder who these people are and why they are here in America, hating America. A Second makes the First possible, but liberals are too stupid to understand or too willing to destroy America to care. Too willing to destroy America to care - has my vote.


6 posted on 07/16/2007 8:11:17 AM PDT by From One - Many (Trust the Old Media At Your Own Risk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2

The wrong decision in this case would start a civil war.


7 posted on 07/16/2007 8:12:51 AM PDT by Lexington Green (There ain't no news in the news no more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2

The question shouldn’t even come up regarding guns in the home. That is a give and has always been that way. The real question is the people carrying guns on the streets of DC. DC is one of the most dangerous citys in the country..................that includes Congress by the way.


8 posted on 07/16/2007 8:14:15 AM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2

The DC Government better get the assistance of outside counsel, because I’ve looked at some of their filings in the Parker case, and it’s embarrassing.


9 posted on 07/16/2007 8:15:20 AM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2
Part of the requirements for Dhimmi status of non-Muslims under sharia law is the banning of personal weapons.

Once again, the American Left is in lock-step with previous totalitarians (Stalin, Hitler) and their present-day replacements: Islamonazis.

13 posted on 07/16/2007 8:19:10 AM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Liberals are blind. They are the dupes of Leftists who know exactly what they're doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2
Ultimately, we need a case that challenges Miller, which was argued and decided with only one side testifying. There was no national gun rights defense group then. It didn't seem necessary.

-Eric

14 posted on 07/16/2007 8:19:54 AM PDT by E Rocc (Resident Smartass and Myspace "Freepers" group moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2

Fill me in.
How can I help in this fight?
(I for one would like to AVOID a civil war—if possible.)

If not—lock and load, boys and girls.


19 posted on 07/16/2007 8:23:31 AM PDT by Flintlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2
Story has been updated repeatedly (same point, more details & history). Click source link for latest details and to give source blog more hits.
27 posted on 07/16/2007 8:48:28 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2
This supreme court seems very hesitant to make any drastic changes, one way or the other. If I would have to guess, I imagine the result would be the court deciding in a split decision 5-4 / 6-3 that the second amendment is an individual right, however, some restrictions such as background checks etc. can be imposed if they meet a certain vague legal test.

Both sides will then declare victory. And it will take about 20 years for various cases to make their way through courts before anyone has a firm grip on what gun control measures meet the legal test set up by the supreme court.

30 posted on 07/16/2007 8:52:49 AM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2
Assumes SCOTUS will take the case. That is not guaranteed.
32 posted on 07/16/2007 8:54:26 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Brian J. Marotta, 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub, (1948-2007) Rest In Peace, our FRiend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2

Ping


33 posted on 07/16/2007 8:56:38 AM PDT by mr_hammer (Show me just what liberalism brought that was new, and there you will find things evil & inhuman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2
Another news release (source unknown; referenced by SCOTUSBLOG):
District to Take Gun Case to the Supreme Court Appeal could be first Second Amendment case heard in nearly 70 years

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, joined by Attorney General Linda Singer and Police Chief Cathy Lanier, announced that the District of Columbia will seek to uphold the city’s 30-year old gun law and petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision in Parker v. District of Columbia.

“We have made the determination that this law can and should be defended and we are willing to take our case to the highest court in the land to protect the city’s residents,” said Mayor Fenty. “Our handgun law has saved countless lives – keeping guns out of the hands of those who would hurt others or themselves.”

On March 9, 2007, in a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down a District of Columbia ban on keeping handguns in homes as a violation of the Second Amendment. The decision did not address provisions barring possession of guns outside the home. The law has been in place for more than 30 years.

The ruling marked the first time that a federal appeals court has struck down a gun regulation on the grounds that the Second Amendment protects an individual's rights to bear arms. On May 8, the full DC Circuit Court denied the District’s petition for rehearing en banc in the case over the dissent of four judges.

After careful review and consideration, Fenty and Singer decided to take the city’s case to the Supreme Court, which has not taken up the issue of the Second Amendment in almost 70 years.

To meet the 90-day deadline to file a petition for certiorari, Attorney General Singer today will file a 30-day extension so that the city may file its request with the high court on September 5th.

“The Second Amendment does not prevent the District of Columbia, like other states, from enacting reasonable regulations to limit gun possessions and protect its residents. We believe that we are right as a matter of law and are hopeful we will prevail,” said Singer.


35 posted on 07/16/2007 8:58:12 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Joe Brower

Bang!


38 posted on 07/16/2007 8:59:49 AM PDT by EdReform (The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed *NRA*JPFO*SAF *GOA*SAS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2

Let us pray Justice Kennedy doesn’t have a headache on the day they vote.


41 posted on 07/16/2007 9:03:33 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2

So, the SCOTUS will (hopefully) decide it’s finally ok to have a gun, but OSHA will make feeding it impossible?


46 posted on 07/16/2007 9:12:20 AM PDT by AngryJawa ({IDPA, NRA} GO HUNTER '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2

Praying for a 2A postive outcome from Kennedy. Does anybody have a feel for how he will vote? Is it just my imagination he has moved a bit to the right since the arrival of Roberts and Alito? Does anyone have any feel for Kennedy on 2A issues from his past history? I’m scared but excited by the prospects.


47 posted on 07/16/2007 9:13:09 AM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: ctdonath2
Well... here we go.

I just sighted in my "plinker" too...

I'm guessing I've got some time before the SCOTUS hears this one. Probably next year some time...

BLOAT. Freshen up your bug out gear. Prepare for either a celebration or liberation.

49 posted on 07/16/2007 9:14:22 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson