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.
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.
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.
[emphasis, mine]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.
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.
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
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....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.
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.