Posted on 10/12/2007 7:55:59 PM PDT by ctdonath2
The District of Columbia government on Friday opposed a move by D.C. residents to expand the scope of Supreme Court review of the dispute over the city’s strict ban on private possession of handguns. In a new brief, city officials argued that the Justices should consider only the constitutionality of the handgun law under the Constitution’s Second Amendment. That is the sole issue raised in the city’s petition in D.C. v. Heller (07-290). D.C. residents have filed a cross-petition (Parker v. District of Columbia, 07-335; the city brief filed on Friday was in opposition to that filing. The Court has not yet acted on either appeal.
Today, DC filed a reply to that petition, apparently noting that with Heller pending before the court, their case would needlessly complicate things without adding anything useful.
I'll post a summary when I get a chance to read their reply.
This is just one more corrupt city government opposing the people and their right to self defense that is implicit in the 2nd amendment. The right confered by god and enumerated in the bill of rights has been INFRINGED. The government has no idea of the number of people willing to become ciminals to keep that right.
As the government has shown over and over it will only enforce the laws that it decides will serve it’s interests, and the people can go to hell.
The obverse of that is:
'And the people will show that it will only obey laws that are clearly constitutional and the government can go to hell.' (Re: The Declaration of Independence.)
'And the people will show that it will only obey laws that are clearly constitutional and the government can go to hell.' (Re: The Declaration of Independence.)
The problem is, the government has shown on multiple occasions that it has no qualms with killing those resisting its laws, but the obverse is not the case.
Yes. That's because the people are long-suffering and are hesitant to act without good counsel and unanimity. But act they will when the ground swells with sufficient and righteous dissent. We have an historical record of that.
When you start seeing more and more of these, 
the end is right around the corner.
This part drives me nuts:
She “intends to use the gun if necessary in lawful self-defense within her home,” but she fears “criminal penalties if she assembles and unlocks her shotgun at home under any circumstance” in supposed violation of D.C. Code § 7-2507.02. Id.; see Complaint at 3-4. The District agrees, however, that the D.C. Code does not prohibit her from using a lawful firearm in self-defense. See Pet. for Cert. 7 n.2. the accordingly does not have a live case or controversy with the District.
If she ASSEMBLES it, it is no longer lawful, and then she can be charged with using an UNLAWFUL shotgun in self-defense.
That’s the nexus that DC is trying desperately to avoid in both cases. Seems the essence of their argument is that you can own a pile of tubing & springs, which can quickly be formed into a long gun if one is lawfully “called up” for militia service, thus “the people” may be self-armed and from which an allegedly “well-regulated militia” may be drawn. The obvious problem with their argument is that “called up” implicitly includes self-defense, and they have no lawful means to get there from here; their legal basis for addressing this is a vapid “we won’t prosecute you for armed self-defense” promise.
Because cross-petitioners identify no reason why a different result should obtain in this case, the cross-petition should be denied. Actually not a bad argument. Ms. Parker and other dismissed plaintiffs are basically arguing for the same result in Heller, so there is no need to have SCOTUS review a practically identical second case, and arguably little would be added by letting them rejoin Mr. Heller. Their constitutional issue is being dismissed for not taking bureaucratic path which was legally & invariably a dead end, which DC could abuse (should Mr. Heller prevail) by creating a multitude of dead ends which no common citizen would have the time/resources to pursue, effectively blocking their right to jurisprudence. The Heller case, as is, is sufficient to address the constitutional issue. (I really despise writing the next bit:) To deny cert to Parker et al is justice denied, yet a practical necessity due to there being only 9 justices in a single Supreme Court and only 365 24-hour days a year.
1. Preliminarily, there is an issue regarding the Court’s jurisdiction. The cross-petition relies on the petition in District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290 (filed Sept. 4, 2007), but that petition was not filed against cross-petitioners and does not seek to change the court of appeals’ judgment with respect to them. Indeed, the nature of the cross-appeal amounts to "I wanna be a defendant", which one should admit is a bit bizzare. It is DC who brings this appeal, not Mr. Heller. While the latter may agree to the appeal (a rare situation), we need to keep perspective in this: this is DC's appeal. Demanding that a petitioner also act against someone else is a bit odd.
2. In any event, there is no reason to grant certiorari on the question presented by the cross-petition any more than there was in Seegars. The Seegars case comes back to bite us now. Parker et al, like the Seegars plaintiffs, have not done anything that firmly and clearly and unavoidably has garnered legal attention. Mr. Heller had a permit request denied, therefore DC is legally aware of his intent and gov't response thereto. The rest have merely alleged in court that they would like to do something, which they may or may not actually do, and which the gov't may or may not take notice of; judicially ignoring such a situation, unfortunately, has precedent.
3. Cross-petitioners’ claims of conflicts with decisions of this Court and other courts of appeals rest largely on a mischaracterization of the D.C. Circuit’s standing jurisprudence. Lacking standing, there is no case, and thus no verdict to contradict other jurisdictions. Prior to losing standing, the only relevant verdict was indeed consistent with most other jurisdictions. Mr. Heller got a verdict, but that does not apply to them per se.
4. Properly understood, there is no conflict between the D.C. Circuit’s ruling on standing and this Court’s precedents. DC proceeds to compare a number of cases which I am unfamiliar with and don't have time to analyze. We'll wait for Parker's response to this for a better analysis.
5. Because respondent Heller was held to have standing, the cross-petitioners have little if anything to gain from their submission. Any judgment by this Court in No. 07-290 will bind the District as against all of its citizens, including cross-petitioners. Indeed, where one plaintiff has sufficient standing to bring the merits of a dispute within the courts’ subject matter jurisdiction, this Court has on more than one occasion noted that it is unnecessary for it to consider whether other plaintiffs also have standing. Should the dismissed plaintiffs rejoin Mr. Heller, I'm not sure they would add much value recognizable now, as they are (jog my memory if I'm wrong) mostly variations on a theme which Heller adequately embodies.
Upshot: Parker et al rejoining Heller would cause more hassle than it's worth, causing a ruckus with the risk of derailing an otherwise clean solid case.
...except for one crucial bit: DC's submitted question & supporting rhetoric is desperately trying to avoid the issue of using long guns for self-defense, saying it's OK to but having absolutely no lawful way to do so. Indeed, their whole contention is that handguns may be banned because long guns are available ... but Mr. Heller cannot directly address the availability of long guns as he only asked the court(s) about handguns, and the prior plaintiffs who did seek long gun ownership are no longer part of the case.
I think the cleverness of DC's strategy is emerging.
I agree, except that I think the cross petition asks the USSC to reverse Seegar, which would be a good thing.
“The notion that the 2nd Amend. confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous... Robert Levy recently offered this explanation:“Suppose the Second amendment said ‘A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.’ Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?” - Ron Paul
I can’t vote for Ron Paul, but I sure like this analogy.
umgud, you’re using logic. Don’t you know you’re not allowed to use logic against the arguments of Liberals. The end result will be our RKBA will exist to the extent Justice Kennedy says it exists.
So they need to violate the law to get standing.
But if they violate the law, they might end up dead.
Dead people don’t have standing.
I think if you asked the founders about this mess they would say it is EXACTLY the reason they wrote the second amendment in the first place!!
If it is illegal in DC to have a 22 pistol, may as well have a machine gun.
Mr. Heller got standing by applying for a permit, and getting denied.
The point of some of the other plaintiffs is that they shouldn’t have to apply for a permit which, by law, WILL be denied without exception or option.
The point of the remaining plaintiffs is that they shouldn’t have to apply for anything, nor violate any law, to have standing to petition for redress of grievances; unfortunately, SCOTUS has to somehow balance “I object to restriction X” between those who actually want to do X and those who just want to whine about it.
The penalties are different.
It is still a felony for which your 2A rights can be stripped (via a Nazi law).
IBrp
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.