Activists should be aware of the fact that as the "Parker" case heads to appeal at the Supreme Court, it is no longer the "Parker" case. The pleading for certiorari will be titled "District of Columbia v. Heller" since Heller was the only plaintiff in the original case who was actually found to have legal standing and the roles have switched for the appeal.

This change has made it difficult for many people trying to keep up with the case to locate information since Activists should be aware of the fact that as the "Parker" case heads to appeal at the Supreme Court, it is no longer the "Parker" case. The pleading for certiorari will be titled "District of Columbia v. Heller" since Heller was the only plaintiff in the original case who was actually found to have legal standing and the roles have switched for the appeal.

This change has made it difficult for many people trying to keep up with the case to locate information since they were searching for the wrong case title.

The Supreme Court did grant the Districts request for more time to file their appeal and that time runs out on September 5. One of the primary reasons for the requested delay - and probably for the decision to appeal itself - is the fact that DC has managed to hire a prominent anti-gun law professor to head up their case. The Professor only became available in the past month or so and they wanted him to be able to supervise the whole shebang. (Or at least that's what I think.)

I am currently writing a short piece on this subject for inclusion in the upcoming edition of the Hard Corps Report which we hope to have in the mail next week.

If you do not currently receive the HCR, all it takes is a donation (or really just a request, but we much prefer requests that are accompanied by a donation to help defray our costs.)

On-line at: www.FirearmsCoalition.org or via snail-mail at: PO Box 3313 Manassas, VA 20108

Remember that your CongressCritters are home this month; make sure they get voting advice from you while they're in town.

Anyone know the basis upon which the others were declared not to have standing and upon which Heller was?

....

During the .... I've spent a little time reading the DC Circuit's opinion. It seems that Heller was the only one deemed to have been "injured". The others just want to exercise their second amendment rights, but since they never tried, they weren't injured. Heller OTOH, applied for a permit to keep a handgun, and was denied. Thus he was injured. With the first amendment the courts have indicating that the mere "chilling" of the exercise of the right is enough for standing, but in the case of the second amendment, I guess the threat of a felony conviction isn't chilling enough) However, in the words of the Court.

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..

The court then ruled that *individuals* and not just the organized or unorganized miltia, have a protected rights to both "Keep" and "Bear" arms, for self defense and other purposes, not just for militia service.

it does not follow that a person who is unsuitable for militia service has no right to keep and bear arms. A physically disabled person, for instance, might not be able to participate in even the most rudimentary organized militia. But this person would still have the right to keep and bear arms, just as men over the age of forty-five and women would have that right, even though our nation has traditionally excluded them from membership in the militia

...

Once it is determined—as we have done—that handguns are “Arms” referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them

...

Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional.

Out FReeping Standing!

Anyone know the basis upon which the others were declared not to have standing and upon which Heller was?

Heller was the only one of the six plaintiffs who actually went down to the handgun registration office, filled out an application, submitted it, and was denied.

Thing is, that office has - pursuant to DC law - not approved ANY handgun permits for the last 30+ years.

Others argued that if the law says you can't have one, there is no point in going thru the trouble of actually applying for one. The lower court held that so long as there was a legal path for the plaintiffs to take - even if everyone knows it's a dead end - they had to take it, exhausting all options including those which had zero chance of succeeding.

And yes, DC apparently maintains & staffs an office whose sole job has been to say "no" to handgun applications, and has done so for three decades.

Why isn't U.S. v. Miller entitled U.S. v. Layton then? Miller would have lost standing, even as defendant, once he was dead, would he not?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.