D.c. Circuit Denial On Re-hearing Of Parker Case

Don H

New member
NEWS RELEASE
Second Amendment Foundation
12500 NE Tenth Place • Bellevue, WA 98005
(425) 454-7012 • FAX (425) 451-3959 • www.saf.org
SAF SAYS D.C. CIRCUIT DENIAL ON RE-HEARING OF PARKER CASE WAS RIGHT
For Immediate Release: 5/8/2007
BELLEVUE, WA – This morning’s decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to deny a petition from the District of Columbia for a hearing of Parker v. District of Columbia before the full court was “right and proper,” said Alan M. Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation.


“This is a strong signal that the D.C. Court of Appeals, which is the second most powerful court in the country, feels the original ruling by Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman is solid,” Gottlieb stated. “It is now up to the district to accept the ruling and begin the process of licensing handguns to be kept legally in district residences, or to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.”


The Parker case has become the most significant Second Amendment case in the nation’s history, because for the first time, a gun control law was struck down on the grounds that it violated the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Judge Silberman’s ruling found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms that goes beyond service in a militia.


“The time is long past due for the Supreme Court to hear a case that has such gravity in terms of the Second Amendment and its true meaning,” Gottlieb observed. “For almost 70 years, a state of confusion has existed over whether the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right, as we are certain it does, rather than affirming some convoluted ‘collective right’ of the states to form militias. That interpretation has been carefully fabricated over the years by anti-gun zealots whose ultimate goal is to strip American citizens of their firearms rights.


“We think this question must be answered,” he continued, “to forever silence those gun control extremists who have been misinterpreting – we believe deliberately – the 1939 U.S. v Miller case in an on-going effort to destroy the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights, and the foundation for liberty in this country. This appears to be the right case, and this is certainly the right time.”


The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

-END-
http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=225
 
If indeed the Supreme Court hears the appeal, which is a big "if" considering they refused to hear a case following the Emerson case's creation of a conflict between the Ninth and Fifth Circuit, the win for DC residents is going to be a fairly small one - they'll be allowed to keep functioning firearms in their home for self-defense.

And what's more, they won't be able to buy a new firearm for the foreseeable future, since there are no FFLs in DC and no way to legally purchase a firearm from across state lines without an FFL.

It'll be a good solid crack in the dam, though, that's for sure.
 
Outstanding!

The Vote was 6-4 to deny the rehearing.

Let's assume (for the moment) that the District drops further appeals.

Some enterprising individual will be able to apply for a FFL and open a shop. Should the District (or even the BATF&E) deny such a business, this will be an actionable cause. It won't take but a moment for the local courts to stomp on the District. They have to comply with the Circuits ruling. Since Federal firearm laws preclude purchasing a handgun in another State (and for such purposes, the District is treated as a State by the Federal law), denying a qualified individual the license or means of doing business within D.C. runs afoul of the Circuits clear intent: to allow the possession of firearms for self-defense by individuals.

However, as I have opined elsewhere, with the egos involved, the District will in all probability take this to the Supreme Court. I also firmly believe that the Court will grant cert.

We will know for sure within 90 days from today, what the District will do. That's the Federal time limit on which to file for cert to the SCOTUS.
 
Indeed, I've been wondering about how this ruling is impacting us now. Specifically, why hasn't this been immediately applied to Chicago's gun laws? (Or someone hasn't attempted). The ruling seems to fit. Is it because everyone knows it is still in process (to SCOTUS)? Why pro-gun legal groups haven't immediately begun filing suit everywhere seems odd to me, what is the legal reason that they wouldn't?
 
The DC Court's ruling applies only in DC, and while it would be an informative precedent for a suit against Chicago, it would not be binding precedent, and won't be unless and until the Supreme Court upholds it.

Filing a lawsuit is extremely expensive, and there's no point in spending the very limited funds of pro-gun organizations (of which only about 4-5 million of the 80 million American gun owners are members) on such an effort until the Parker case is firmly decided one way or the other.

If 10 million more people joined their favorite pro-gun organization tomorrow, maybe they would find it worthwhile to file a suit before Parker is settled.
 
To the gun-grabbers

HA-ha! [/Nelson voice]

But it pains me that a PRO-gun ruling means that the result is to "start licensing handguns". :eek: That's bizarro world. Still, a definite step in the right direction. :)

Let's see, we have the 5th circuit and DC circuit saying individual right, and the 9th circuit (ya know, the one that's been overturned 29 of the last 32 times that cert was granted on one of its rulings) saying no individual right. Hmmmmmm. Hope the city DOES appeal it!
 
Techy, maybe when the Second Amendment is restored we'll be able to look back at the illegality of interstate private-party sales and laugh.
 
Back
Top