D.C. vs. Heller (Supreme Court and the 2A) - Mega Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
My concern ... Fenty may be an idiot, but I'm sure he'd getting plenty of advice from anti-gun non-idiots. If he's going to SCOTUS after telegraphing he might not, he probably thinks he'll get a win.

I'm trying to stay even on this, but I really fear what will happen if SCOTUS rules against the 2nd amendment.

The best option would be the 90 million or so US gun owners get energized and get the problems fixed. Either get legislation or a new amendment SCOTUS can't thumb its collective nose at.

I think it's more likely it will be the beginning of the end of private gun ownership in the US. Between UN treaties and etc. and the police slowly whittling away at the "molon labe" patriots over a period of decades we will slowly become like England.

It will take a long while, but it will happen.

I SURE hope I'm wrong about that!
 
This from the Circuits' Decision:
D.C. Circuit said:
The denial of the gun license is significant; it constitutes an injury independent of the District’s prospective enforcement of its gun laws, and an injury to which the stringent requirements for pre-enforcement standing under Navegar and Seegars would not apply. Since D.C. Code §22-4504 (prohibition against carrying a pistol without a license) and D.C. Code §7-2507.02 (disassembly/trigger lock requirement) would amount to further conditions on the certificate Heller desires, Heller’s standing to pursue the license denial would subsume these other claims too.
Click to expand...

is in direct opposition to this, from the denial to lift the stay:
D.C. Circuit said:
But our opinion does not specifically address the constitutionality of that statute as it applies to shotguns and rifles because the only plaintiff we concluded had standing under our precedent was Dick Heller, who complained solely about the restrictions on ownership and use of a handgun.
Click to expand...

You will excuse me if I say... What?!

If Heller subsumes the other claims, then Heller includes with his specific argument, all the arguments of the other apellents. So that whether or not the Court specificly ruled D.C. Code § 7-2507.02 unconstitutional as regards rifles or shotguns is irrelevant, as Heller subsumed the other claims and therefore such a ruling in general, applies to rifles, shotguns and handguns.

Now the Circuit can deny the motion on any number of grounds, but to try to rewrite its decision after the fact simply smacks of politicizing.
 
I would have to read back through all the case history to see the precise arguments, but presuming the other plaintiffs did not have the same injury, they would not be entitled to the same relief.

From Order denying motion:

At least one other plaintiff (Gillian St. Lawrence) did address Section 7-2507.02 as it applied to shotguns but she did not have the same injury as Heller – the denial of a license.
Click to expand...
 
The Circuit court probably realizes it has opened Pandora's box and wants to help limit the damage. Like WA said the effect could be a backhand slap to state and local ordinances that have do not issue laws or deny permits without a legal basis. If affirmed by the Supreme Court it will strike a blow to the anti-gun rhetoric. Hear Mrs. Brady screeching at the top of her lungs..lol.

I think it is a little late now :o
 
If you're watching someone open Pandora's box, isn't there some temptation to just reach over and slam the lid?

Someone remind me why the Supremes want to wade into this question?

They'll make the fewest waves if they just deny cert, it seems. Why won't they just do that?
 
If SCOTUS accepts the case ... everything is on the line.

If SCOTUS denies cert, then it's a monumental victory. Not as monumental as a victory in SCOTUS, perhaps, but since it's DC district court and DC is the home of the Federal Government, it will pretty much rule out a Federal Gun ban.

And no longer can the anti's claim that no law has ever been thrown out because of the 2nd amendment.

I almost hope cert is denied. I think the supremes will think hard about this. Whatever they choose will cause some social issues and change the political layout of the country.

I'm just glad the district court had the courage to do the right thing even if the Supremes don't.
 
Garand, I'm thinking that the SCOTUS will grant cert. I'm also thinking that it will be as narrow a decision as it can be... 6-3 in holding with the Circuit Court.

One of the reasons for granting cert is the cross-petition. It is in the Courts best interests to bring all the Circuits into line with the Satnding issue. Since the cross-petition is conditional upon granting cert to D.C., this is the only way (at the moment) to acheive that.

In the denial of the motion, Silberman is telegraphing the SCOTUS just that message.
At least one other plaintiff (Gillian St. Lawrence) did address Section 7-2507.02 as it applied to shotguns but she did not have the same injury as Heller – the denial of a license. Id. To be sure, as our opinion suggested, the Supreme Court may well disagree with Seegars, 396 F.3d 1248 (D.C. Cir. 2005), and conclude that all the plaintiffs have standing.
Click to expand...
[emphasis, mine]

Of one thing I'm sure, the Justices are watching this case very closely.
 
FWIW Anti, I agree with everything you have said. The rifle and shotgun argument by DC is a ruse and will, most likely, "anger" the Justices IMHO. It gets back to that "deflect and confuse" practice used by attorneys. That, in my experience, irritates judges IMHO. Well, at least it would irritate me FWIW.

Guys: I'd be willing to go forward on this one. Let's take our chances!:)

Think about it, the Surpreme Court rules the 2nd Amendment stands for an individual right. Wow! Wouldn't that be something!?:D
 
That's what confused me! The Constitution is written in plan , Very Plane English that should be understood by any one with a 5th grade education!:mad:

They Keep Choking on the Phrase " A well regulated Militia" They are thinking as in Controlled, Under Regulation, Some Divine Person in Control"

The writers ,That is not what they was talking about! The simple fact is they keep overlooking the first three words of it. "WE THE PEOPLE" The Militia will be Regulated by the People.

Those are most Key Words! This Gave the People the Power, No place is Governent Mentioned in that artical.

There Fore the Right to bear arms is a givien!
 
One of the reasons for granting cert is the cross-petition. It is in the Courts best interests to bring all the Circuits into line with the Satnding issue.
Click to expand...

They can continue to ignore that conflict, just as they have ignored the conflict between the circuits on the question of whether the 2nd describes an individual right.

They can wait for either issue to come up again, if they want to.

WildAlaska said:
The 2nd Amendment will be found to be an individual right and laws involving that right will be subject to strict scrutiny. Under that analysis, the instant check and most provisions of the GCA will be upheld, the NFA registry will have to be reopened, non issue laws like DC will go, maybe issue laws like NYC will eventually get loosed by way of legislation, CCW laws will be upheld, Sarah Brady and her crew will be even more annoying and the L&P section of gunboards will wither away
Click to expand...

I agree with WildspeculatorAlaska, if they take the case. I do wonder which provisions of the GCA might go, but I'm kind of looking forward to affordable machine guns. Yeah, I said it.

So my question is, when was the last time the Supreme Court took that much power away from the federal government and gave it back to individuals, and generally upset the apple cart that much?
 
I hear you Pub and Wild but if SCOTUS rules for an individual right the gun grabbers will have a much harder time in the future. People will be able to argue that their (anti-gun) proposals deny them an individual right allowed by a SCOTUS decision. You get what I mean.

It would still be a dream come true for me, even though there would still be some restrictions.
 
Like many others, I'm kinda on the edge of my seat, waiting to hear something about whether or not the SC is going to hear this case. As of today, they've agreed to hear 47 cases but there's no mention of 'Heller.'
Can someone with more knowledge about these proceedings give me (us) some idea what's going on? Do they have to actively agree NOT to hear the case and publish that decision or can they just ignore it until it goes away?
 
My understanding is that at least four justices have to agree to grant certiorari for a case for it to be heard. I don't think they reveal who voted which way on a case, only that cert has not been granted.
 
Pat, that is correct as far as it goes.

On Sept. 10th, the Parker group filed a cross-petition. D.C. has until next Tues. (the 9th) to file a rebuttal to the cross-petition. If they do not file, then we may hear whether or not cert is granted.
 
Supreme Court Rule, 15.2, states in part (emphasis mine):
...the brief in opposition should address any perceived misstatement of fact or law in the petition that bears on what issues properly would be before the Court if certiorari were granted.
Click to expand...
The rule goes on to state that addressing such misstatements may not be made later, they must be made in the brief for opposition. It does not state that the brief must be for the denial of cert.

This is what Heller has done in their reply.

The question presented by D.C.:
Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns.

The question presented by Heller:
Whether the Second Amendment guarantees lawabiding, adult individuals a right to keep ordinary, functional firearms, including handguns, in their homes.

Read them carefully and you will see what Heller is really saying, as opposed to the "made-up" restriction that D.C. wishes the SCOTUS to apply.

Heller has replied that the District has posed the wrong question to the court. Then they list the reasons why the question posed should be thiers and not the one the District wants.

Now go and read that brief in opposition! You will be entertained at the backslaps and swipes that Alan Gura makes... In a completely gentlemanly manner, as befitting a Supreme Court Brief.

One of my favorite quotes from this brief:
The rights secured by the Second Amendment are not negated by the various policy preferences masquerading as social science in Petitioners’ brief. The city is not required to approve of the freedoms guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The city is not required to believe such rights are efficient or well-advised, or contribute to the formation of a wholesome society. The city is required only to obey the Constitution.
Click to expand...
 
What I liked about the brief was what wasn't actually written in it, but implied in my opinion. That is, "you guys (D.C.) filed the appeal to SCOTUS, we didn't. But now that you did that, we're going to use the rules available to us to drive home our position in a way that not only you aren't going to like, but lots of folks like you aren't going to like either". I think that, for me, this was the most enjoyable part of the whole thing so far.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top