Posted on 05/08/2007 10:05:16 AM PDT by ozoneliar
In the Parker case, a 2-1 majority of the D.C. Circuit found that the DC city council's prohibition on handguns, and its ban on using any firearm for lawful self-defense, were violations of the Second Amendment. Today, the full Circuit denied the DC government's petition for a rehearing en banc.
The decision states: "Appellees' petition for rehearing en banc and the response thereto were circulated to the full court, and a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges eligible to participate did not vote in favor of the petition. Upon consideration of the foregoing and appellees' Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) letter, it is ORDERED that the petition be denied."
A footnote to the order states: "Circuit Judges Randolph, Rogers, Tatel, and Garland would grant the petition for rehearing en banc." The following is the list of judges who voted on the petition, with affirmtive votes marked by an asterisk: "Ginsburg (Chief Judge), Sentelle, Henderson, Randolph,* Rogers,* Tatel,* Garland,* Brown, Griffith, and Kavanaugh."
2nd Amendment BUMP!
Where does the appeal process go after this?
Double tap bump! Great news!
Double tap bump! Great news!
This is well done.
As it stands now, only criminals and cops have handguns in DC. So, if you’re a law-abiding citizen in the nation’s capital, and someone is trying to break into your house, you get to call the cops. And, IF the cops can find your house(no joke), they might get there just in time to help the EMTs load your body into a bag.
The Circuit Court’s decision is driving the DC City Council bonkers. It simply cannot understand how a handgun can SAVE a life.
Council members need to get out more.
The Supreme Court. D.C. can petition the SCOTUS to grant cert.
Council members need to be stripped of their personal security guards. Then watch the fun. :)
I’m almost willing to bet that the Supremes won’t even comment on this, as nobody there seems to want to touch this.
Thanks.
That's good news. That means no more stops on the way to Supreme Court review, if in fact SCOTUS takes the case. I sincerely hope it does.
But, doesn’t the Supreme Court need to hear the case to overturn the precedent set in a 1930s era case that individuals do not have an absolute right to have a firearm?
If the Supreme Court didn’t hear the case, I think legally the District law is still overturned, but then there would be no clear precedent to follow?
You are correct in your first sentence.
As to the second, it’s a much-better-than-usual shot that SCOTUS will grant cert, because the DC decision created a “circuit split.” SCOTUS correctly abhors a circuit split because it means, as a practical matter, that federal law means one thing in ONE part of the country and a different thing in another.
BANG!
Right on! Now let’s get this to the SC. Sooner than later.
aaaaaaaah, too bad....BWAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Yes, if the court sees that as a compelling interest. The SCOTUS has lots of factors that affect whether they take a case, and resolving logical discontinuities is only one of them. Still, I think they'll take the case, for just the reason you cite. By the way, US vs. Miller doesn't really reflect good law. Neither Miller nor his counsel showed up for the hearing.
While this is great, I don’t think it matters if this goes to SCOTUS or not. Can’t they just re-write the law to be more like NYC’s? Couldn’t they still write a law so restrictive that virtually no “regular people” can still possess a gun?
The Miller case doesn't say any such thing. That's gun prohibitionist spin.
The case deal with the type of gun, a sawed off shotgun. The SCOTUS ruled that it had no evidence before it to lead it to conclude that such a weapon was useful in warfare and therefore a suitable weapon for a "well-regulated militia."
(Of course, Miller was gone and he had no legal representation to present such evidence.)
Not necessarily disjoint sets.
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.