DC Gun Ban going to Supreme Court
Just announced DC Mayor Fenty is taking the appeal to the Supreme's.
Let's hope Roberts and his troops do the right thing.
Let's hope Roberts and his troops do the right thing.
0
-
Wasn't that one already declared unconstitutional by a Federal Appeals Court? 0 -
Yep, overwhelmingly rejected by the 3 judge panel.
Let's hope the Roberts court does the right thing.0 -
Best news I've heard all day....
I just hope the NRA doesn't attempt to torpedo the case again0 -
quote:Originally posted by greeker375
Yep, overwhelmingly rejected by the 3 judge panel.
Let's hope the Roberts court does the right thing.
It seems to me that the supreme court should have the responsibility of hearing this case. Either it is a state/local issue, or it's a constitutional/federal issue. They need to rule on this.
Ben0 -
It is an awful BIG bet - if we Gun Lovers lose, it is curtains on our sport... 0 -
This could be split since DC does not have the same rights as states do.
I know, I know, everyone is protected by the constitution, I'm just saying that it is a convenient out for both sides depending on the outcome - and really the perfect case to go to the supreme court since both sides can regroup and better prepare for the next case after the case is heard.0 -
yeah... but this is definitely high stakes poker now. 0 -
The Supreme Court could always just let it stand and not hear the case. 0 -
The three panel circuit court split on a 2-1 decision. the one justice said it was not appropriate to enforce the constitution upon D.C. because it was not a state, or some BS like that.
Since then, I believe the apelate court has also upheld the ruling by the circuit court. leaving just the supreme court for appealing the case. I believe they have to accept the case within 3 months of the apelate courts decision, which was about 2 months ago.
All this is from memory, so don't go quoting this info to your friends....[:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by muss
The three panel circuit court split on a 2-1 decision. the one justice said it was not appropriate to enforce the constitution upon D.C. because it was not a state, or some BS like that.
Since then, I believe the apelate court has also upheld the ruling by the circuit court. leaving just the supreme court for appealing the case. I believe they have to accept the case within 3 months of the apelate courts decision, which was about 2 months ago.
All this is from memory, so don't go quoting this info to your friends....[:D]
Or they can simply let the appellate court decison stand which is a slap in the face of the DC Mayor!
It will be an interesting case to watch! I am sure little Chucky Schumer will have a big hand in this one, and attempt to bring pressure on all parties to zap the second amendment. If that happens it may be time for another Boston Tea Party!0 -
I expect that the Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case. 0 -
An interesting read on this topic from the Harvard law guys.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/alumni/bulletin/2007/summer/feature_3.php0 -
quote:ElMuertoMonkey Posted - 07/16/2007 : 1:56:42 PM
The Supreme Court could always just let it stand and not hear the case.
For them this would be the easy way out of saying yes or no0 -
quote:Originally posted by Zulu7
Wasn't that one already declared unconstitutional by a Federal Appeals Court?
Most corrups dont care0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
The Supreme Court could always just let it stand and not hear the case.
That's my bet. I'll really be impressed if this court hears the case. I'm not sure how they chose whether to hear a case. Is it a majority vote or does the Chief Justice decide which cases to hear. My guess is it is a majority vote.
Either way, should the Court decide to take this case, it shows just how aggressive a Roberts Court is willing to be.
If they hear the case, Antony Kennedy will be the swing vote. He's a libertarian that tend to vote for individual's rights, but he voted for that New Jersey land condemnation case. It's hard to say how he will swing.0 -
Great news! I hope they hear it. 0 -
that Harvard article was quite informative.
A), the Supremes need to hear it
quote:The ruling-in Parker v. District of Columbia-marked the first time a gun law has been found unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment, and it set up a direct conflict among the circuits. Nine federal appeals courts around the nation have adopted the view that the amendment guarantees only the collective right of organized state militias to bear arms, not an individual's right. (A 5th Circuit panel found that individuals have gun rights but upheld the regulation in question, so both sides claim that ruling as a victory.)
, the Supremes have less of an excuse to not hear it
quote:According to HLS Professor Mark Tushnet, author of "Out of Range: Why the Constitution Can't End the Battle Over Guns" (Oxford University Press, 2007), earlier petitions were cluttered by issues that allowed the Court to decline review or avoid the Second Amendment question. But Parker "is more straightforward," Tushnet says, and the Court will have a tougher time avoiding the issue.
If Parker is the long-awaited "clean" case, one reason may be that proponents of the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment-including the National Rifle Association, which filed an amicus brief in the case-have learned from earlier defeats, and crafted strategies to maximize the chances of Supreme Court review. For one thing, it is a civil case, not a criminal one, and the six plaintiffs, in the words of NRA President Sandra Froman '74, are "ordinary people whose lives are impacted by not having the right to protect themselves." They include a woman who lives in a high-crime area and has been threatened by drug dealers, a gay man assaulted because of his sexual orientation and a special police officer for the Federal Judicial Center.
...
Also important, says Tushnet, is the fact that because Parker emanates from the District of Columbia, where only federal law applies, it doesn't involve the overlaying question of whether the Second Amendment applies to a state by way of the 14th Amendment-a question that clouded an earlier case involving one city's complete ban on handgun possession. He adds that a number of states urged the Court not to take that case, and the solicitor general did the same in another one.
I like this quote.
quote:"Remember," Froman adds, "the Second Amendment guarantees a right-it does not confer a right. It's God-given. It's natural. The right of self-survival is a basic instinct of any organism." The Constitution "acknowledges that."0 -
The Supreme court and DC Court of Appeals tend to agree on stuff. So chances are they will uphold the ruling if it makes it to their court.
If this happens I think it will open doors to end alot of unconsitional firearms laws.
But then again it's late and I'm plenty drunk so I may just be dreaming.0 -
They still have one excuse.
Some political issues are too big for the SCOTUS.
This issue has all the ear marks.0 -
Given some of the recent Supreme Court rulings, this might actually play out in our (PRO-2ND AMENDMENT) favor.
IF the latest rulings provide a bit of a "foreshadowing" as to the tendencies of the high court, I say press on. This could be a landmark decision...... in our favor (defined as those of us who support the framework of the US Constitution).
just my .020 -
If SCOTUS refuses to hear the case then the issue will still be unsettled. This is probably what will happen since two higher courts have already agreed to overturn the lower court. SCOTUS will view this as issue settled so why do I need to get involved. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
21 comments