DCguncase.com (Parker vs DC)

[ELB]

I posted about this on the tail end of another thread, but thought more folks might see it here. I guess the Federal Law area is appropriate?

The law firm that is representing the plaintiffs who sued to overturn the DC gun ban has put up a website dedicated to the case. It contains all the court filings from both sides, as well as some commentary.

The url is....

http://dcguncase.com/blog/

Enjoy.

elb

[Kalrog]

Thanks! I have been following this on scotusblog, but another specific site is helpful as well.

[ELB]

Dave Kopel notes a significant development in this case.

To steal his thunder, here's a summay of his summary:

1. The DC Court of appeals ruled that the complete ban on handguns violated the 2nd Amendment.

2. The Court also ruled that DC government's requirement that long guns be either dismantled or locked up, with no exception for self-defense, i.e. a ban on functional longarms, was also a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

D.C. government got the Court of Appeals to refrain from enforcing its rulings ("stay its mandate") by telling the Court of Appeals it was going to appeal the rulings to the US Supreme Court.

HOWEVER, D.C. pulled a fast one on the Court of Appeals, and has only appealed the ruling against the ban on handguns.

The lead lawyer for the good guys caught this, and now asked the DC Court of Appeals to lift its stay of its ruling on longarms, arguing the the DC government has essentially conceded that the ban on functional longarms is unconstitutional.

D.C. government has 30 days to answer.

Go read Mr. Kopel's post, and check out the lawyer's motion at http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parke ... t_stay.pdf

I have been worried about this case, concerned that the Supreme Court was still not reliably correct on the Bill of Rights, particularly the 2nd one, but it does appear the bad guys are in retreat right now and the good guys are forging ahead.

elb

[KBCraig]

That's a good catch.

One thing I try to caution folks about, when they're too excited about the possibly outcome of Parker: the very best possible ruling will still allow for "reasonable restrictions".

SCOTUS can smack down DC in this case, but still rule that it is "reasonable" that no one be allowed to carry a handgun in public.

[nitrogen]

That's a good catch.

One thing I try to caution folks about, when they're too excited about the possibly outcome of Parker: the very best possible ruling will still allow for "reasonable restrictions".

SCOTUS can smack down DC in this case, but still rule that it is "reasonable" that no one be allowed to carry a handgun in public.

Baby steps. It might allow people in Chicago and NYC to get pistols, for instance.

[ELB]

Now this is interesting...

In 1982, the District of Columbia, (as in Washington, D.C.) wrote itself a constitution to be used if it could convince everybody it should become America's newest state, the state of New Columbia.

In 1987 (not having achieved statehood yet) D.C. re-wrote the constitution, this time enumerating a certain right in the Bill of Rights section. Apparently the 1987 "New Columbia" constitution is still the current one, if the "state" ever gets off the ground.

The enumerated right:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to ___ ___ ____ ____, _____ ___ __ _________."

I willl leave it as an exercise for the reader to fill in the blanks. Check here for help:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007 ... 1190750734

Fascinating.

elb

[Will938]

I have no faith in the supreme court, almost no justices take the amendments at face value. Justice Black was disgusted with some of the other justices when refering to free speech cases. The other justices would look at the law in question and say "well, congress has an interest in protecting blah blah blah". Black would say "'Congress shall make no law...abridging...speech', they didn't make any exemption for an interest congress has." I loved Douglas and Black.

In my inexperienced opinion if this goes to court they'll rule that while you can't outlaw handguns completely, the state/district has a vested interest in safety and therefore can regulate as they see fit. Won't be a huge change. Hopefully they can read english this time so we don't end up reading another Miller case.

[frankie_the_yankee]

My prediction is that possession and carry in the home will be protected. Transport and carrying outside the home will be subject to "reasonable" regulations.

And the 2A will be firmly established as an individual right.

This will result in big changes in places like NYC, DC, and Chicago. But it will be pretty much business as usual most everywhere else.

[ELB]

I earlier wrote:

The lead lawyer for the good guys caught this, and now asked the DC Court of Appeals to lift its stay of its ruling on longarms, arguing the the DC government has essentially conceded that the ban on functional longarms is unconstitutional.

Well, it was a good try, but it didn't work. The Court of Appeals refused to lift their own stay. However, in their ruling, they put a foot note that essentially lays out a case for why a handgun is a more practical self/home defense firearm...a kind of back-handed refutation of D.C.'s appeal to the Supremes.

http://dcguncase.com/blog/2007/09/25/dc ... f-mandate/

and the actual order (be sure to check out footnote number 3)

http://dcguncase.com/blog/wp-content/up ... t-stay.pdf

elb

[Kalrog]

I think from a logical standpoint, the motion to lift the stay was a good one, but from a legal standpoint I think the decision was correct - given the previous rulings and all that. I hope SCOTUS rules in our favor though - and I think there is a better than average chance on this case.

[ELB]

Another view on the DC Court of Appeals decision to not lift their own stay. Dave Hardy finds it extraordinary how much the court commented on the the certiorari petition before the Supreme Court.

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/ ... andate.php

Dave Hardy is a lawyer who produced a documentary, In Search of the Second Amendment, on the constitutional protection for the right to bear arms.




elb

[Kalrog]

Nice. It is almost like his take is that the Court of Appeals is saying "We ruled how we had to based on precident, but we really think precident is wrong and DC is being illogical. Please rule this unconstitutional."

[Sangiovese]

My prediction is that possession and carry in the home will be protected. Transport and carrying outside the home will be subject to "reasonable" regulations.

And the 2A will be firmly established as an individual right.

This will result in big changes in places like NYC, DC, and Chicago. But it will be pretty much business as usual most everywhere else.

I also think that we have a good court right now to hear this case. DCs ban is a weak one and we have a favorable court - perfect timing on this finally getting to the supremes. I only hope that they actually accept it and put it on their docket.

[ELB]

Recall that D.C. has now asked the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to hear its appeal, but only on the ruling that invalidates the handgun ban, arguing disengenously that their law still allowed people to use rifles and shotguns for defending themselves in their homes. This is of course complete bovine pasture clutter; the law required longarms to be disassembled or triggerlocked at ALL times, no exceptions for self-defense in the home.

The Good Guys have now responded, also asking the SCOTUS to hear D.C.'s appeal, but arguing that D.C. got the question wrong. The response frames the basic question as:

Whether the Second Amendment guarantees law abiding,
adult individuals a right to keep ordinary,
functional firearms, including handguns, in their
homes.

The Good Guys present several good arguments, including one aimed specifically D.C.'s claims that they can ban handguns because the Second Amendment doesn't require it to “stand by while its citizens die.� Well, as the Good Guys reply, no it doesn't:

Citizens Under Criminal Attack Are Not
Required to Stand By and Die Awaiting
Police Protection.

Go read the whole thing. It has some good history on the Second Amendment, a good summary of United States versus Miller, and a ripping good destruction of D.C.'s claim that its handgun ban reduces violent crime.

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parke ... sponse.pdf

[frankie_the_yankee]

The response is a good read, but there are a few parts that I didn't particularly care for.

The case is further suitable for review because the question it presents is quite narrow. Contrary to Petitioners’ tendentious formulation of the question presented in their petition, the question presented by this case is whether the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep basic functional firearms, including ordinary handguns, within the home. In resolving that narrow, specific question, this Court need not decide the full extent of Second Amendment rights nor even determine the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny for regulations that implicate the Second Amendment.

If the court sticks to this and gives a narrow ruling, forget about anything coming out that would threaten the restrictive CHL states or cities. It looks like they are only going after the "keep" and leaving aside the "bear".

That the city’s police power allows it to regulate firearms in the interest of public safety is unquestioned.

Not good news for those of us looking for gun rights to be affirmed with respect to oppressive laws regulating gun possession OUTSIDE the home, even though the statement is followed by the one below.

But the police power is checked by the Second Amendment, just as it is checked by other constitutional rights.

The respondents do not seem to be arguing for the court to draw the line between these two statements in any particular place. In that instance, the court is likely to allow wide latitude for local gun "controls" like what we see now in the oppressive states so long as they fall short of outright prohibition of possession in the home.