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."
Thanks I hope the case gets there soon and is ruled on before the election.
My guess is that the most we can hope for is that the opinion is affirmed, and that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated into the 14th.
I don't think it will be a basis for us to go getting every state and local gun law thrown out the window. If it is indeed a fundamental right, then my guess is that the court will adopt some sort of intermediate scrutiny for challenging gun laws. Strict scrutiny would be my choice, just as it is the standard for the government's ability to curtail other established individual rights.
If I am right then many of the more draconian laws like in Chicago and NYC will be subject to serious review. But things like prohibitions on carrying will probably still be left to the states, at least for now. If JRB replaces a liberal in the next year then who knows, we may get some real meaningful precedent that will open the door to challenging a lot of restrictions.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
If D.C. appeals the Supreme Court may decide to hear the appeal or not. If they refuse to hear the appeal the lower court ruling stands.
If they agree to hear the appeal, that’s when things get interesting.
Ginsburg should have been on the Supreme Court...Its a shame he pulled out and we ended up with Kennedy.
Me too.
I've looked at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals website, but haven't found anything.
Yeah, I’m thinking that Venn diagram overlaps.
They did this - because it’s right to do so.
Think about this, everyone -
all those folks in jail for simply possessing a firearm in DC will be freed and pardoned because
any law that is deemed unconstitutional is not considered to have ever BEEN a law. Anyone being punished for violating a “non-existant” law will be freed.
DC may just decide to cut their losses and write a new law that’s about as restrictive, which will then cause the whole cycle to start all over.
This tactic would try to make the problem go away by running the good guys out of money.
“Kennedy seems the most likely to side with Ginsburg et al. and vote to reverse, whereas Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will probably vote to affirm.”
Not withstanding the argument that Kennedy has often dissapointed conservatives, as a Reagan appointee I doubt Kennedy would want his legacy to be one that was the swing vote against individual gun rights in a critical second amendment ruling by the SCOTUS, a critical ruling that would set national precedence regarding individual gun rights. I predict he would side with the four conservatives, with the possiblility of even Breyer being on board. Supposedly Breyer’s former Harvard Law School colleague Lawrence Tribe, a liberal constitutional law expert, has even admitted that the 2nd amendment protects an individuals right to bear arms.
If SCOTUS takes the case, I see a 5-4 or perhaps even a 6-3 ruling upholding the circuit courts decision affirming the individuals right to bear arms.
In archaic 18th-Century custom of language, 'infringment' meant the impropriety of laying one's flintlock pistol down upon a linen doily next to the silver tea service.
The Founders never intended that no gun laws could come into being, no no, quite on the contrary. Rather, they were chiefly concerned with firearms as they relate to dignified protocol at afternoon tea.
(/Brady Campaign)
Now that the case has the publicity I expect the money will be there. And the English language has only so many variations in it - soon you run out of different ways of saying the same thing.
Not really - the Parker ruling struck down the law that made it illegal to posses a functional firearm in your home, and the law that required a permit for a firarm, in your home.
So, only those folks aressted for possession of a functional firearm in their home, without a permit, will be free - not pardoned. You can’t pardon someone for a crime that didn’t exist.
Having said all that, the number of persons arrested for this, and no other crime, is probably pretty small.
SAF SAYS D.C. CIRCUIT DENIAL ON RE-HEARING OF PARKER CASE WAS RIGHT
I think that you are exactly correct.
Someone responded to your post by stating: “Two out of twelve courts. And there have probably been 40 cases — two of the 40 have been ruled an individual right.”
At one time the general consensus was that the Earth was flat. There was also a consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
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.