D.C. Ban Lawyer Says It's About Liberties

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by GAGunOwner, Mar 18, 2007.

  1. GAGunOwner

    GAGunOwner Active Member

     

  2. Macktee

    Macktee New Member

    6,172
    0
    0
    "By the way, I'm not a member of any of those pro-gun groups,"


    Wonder if there's any chance this guy might want to join this particular pro-gun group?

    We could certainly use his experience and expertise, eventhough we have our own in-house counsel. But, far more importantly, we could sure as hell use his money...

    So, who wants to send him an invitation to join our merrie band?
     
  3. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    238
    63
    I did not read this article until tonight. I am very impressed with him. Of course, everybody thinks it is a Cato Institute lawsuit because that is what the press releases and articles at the web site say . . .
     
  4. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    Thats just the pro-gun people saying it is a Cato lawsuit. The Anti's are blaming the NRA (there usual knee-jerk reaction to anything pro-gun).
     
  5. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    238
    63
     
  6. Macktee

    Macktee New Member

    6,172
    0
    0
    .





    Way to go MP !!!!!!!!!!!


    As usual, thoughtful, concise and well written. Nicely done.






    .
     
  7. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    238
    63
    More from Robert Levy:

    Robert A. Levy: Should Congress or the courts decide D.C. gun ban’s fate?
    Apr 3, 2007 3:00 AM
    by Robert A. Levy, The Examiner
    Font Size: a a A A
    Current rank: # 9 of 23,482

    WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Could the National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress be undermining the best pro-gun case ever likely to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court?


    More than four years ago, three attorneys and I filed Parker v. District of Columbia, a Second Amendment case on behalf of six local residents who want to defend themselves in their own homes.

    For reasons that remain unclear, we faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation. Happily, the case survived. On March 9, in a blockbuster opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned the city’s gun ban — holding that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.â€

    Parker is the first federal appellate decision to invalidate a gun control statute on Second Amendment grounds. Federal circuit courts covering 47 states have held that there’s no recourse under the Second Amendment when state and local gun regulations are challenged. That means Parker could be headed to the Supreme Court.

    Enter Congress and the NRA. First, Reps. Mike Ross, D-Ark., and Mark Souder, R-Ind., introduced the D.C. Personal Protection Act. Then, on March 28, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, followed suit in the Senate. Both bills, pushed hard by the NRA, would repeal the D.C. gun ban.

    Ordinarily, that might be a good thing. But passage of the bills would kill the Parker litigation. It isn’t possible to challenge a law that has been repealed. Yet, Sen. Hutchison claims in her press release that she favors “both a legislative and judicial remedy. I hope the Parker case goes before the Supreme Court and that the court asserts that the right to bear arms is an individual, and not a collective, right. ...â€

    Incredible.

    When asked to clarify the NRA’s position, CEO Wayne LaPierre told us in a private meeting, “You can take it to the bank. The NRA will not do anything to prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing Parker.â€

    Maybe so, but actions speak louder than words. The NRA’s aggressive promotion of the D.C. Personal Protection Act is baffling at best.

    Parker is a much better vehicle to vindicate Second Amendment rights than an act of Congress. First, legislative repeal of the D.C. gun ban will not stop criminal defense attorneys and Public Defenders from citing the Second Amendment when they challenge “felon in possession†charges. Thus, if Parker is derailed, the next Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court could feature a murderer or drug dealer instead of six law-abiding citizens.

    Second, a bill aimed at D.C. does only part of the job. It could be repealed by a more liberal Congress. And it will have no effect on state law outside of D.C. In effect, those who support the D.C. Personal Protection Act will be opposing an unambiguous Supreme Court proclamation on the Second Amendment, applicable across the nation.

    Third, the Supreme Court is more conservative today than it’s been for some time, and probably more conservative than it’s going to be. In the unlikely event that five current justices decide to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by upholding a total ban on handguns, that would be the time for Congress to act. Until then, the D.C. Personal Protection Act is premature and counter-productive.

    Meanwhile, if Congress wants to help, there are positive things it can do. D.C. has no federal firearms licensees. And handguns, unlike rifles and shotguns, can’t be purchased out of state. So even if Parker wins, D.C. residents could not buy a handgun.

    Congress should allow interstate handgun sales as long as they comply with the law in both states. And Congress should change how D.C. processes gun registrations. The city requires multiple pictures, fingerprints, and on and on. The process can take months. Congress can mandate that D.C. officials accept the National Instant Check System used everywhere else.

    My colleagues and I have drafted alternative legislation — now in the hands of selected senators —that accomplishes those objectives and more, without extinguishing the Parker suit.

    Finally, the NRA has suggested that the D.C. Personal Protection Act is “must†legislation. But the D.C. handgun ban was enacted 31 years ago. Why is it only now that legislation must be passed — especially when the effect of that legislation will be to kill the best chance ever for the Supreme Court to affirm that the Second Amendment means what it says?

    Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and co-counsel to the plaintiffs in Parker v. District of Columbia.
     
  8. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    238
    63
    From the Liberty Papers, NRA v. Second Amendment.
     
  9. Tinkerhell

    Tinkerhell Active Member

    2,417
    1
    38
    Am I missing something here or is this crazy?!
    The group that is supposed to be supporting gun rights is potentially kicking us in the nuts.

    USMCR (and MP becuase I think you have/had similar concerns) I've been considering joining the NRA what with the big push (USMCR is SUCH a pimp :wink: ) on these forums but this kind of thing along with the recent debacle surrounding HB43 really makes me lean towards not join. Yes I know the argument of "they ignore non-members complaints" but I can't really justify giving money to be used against my wishes & have my complaints ignored anyway.

    Local, State & Fed politicians REALLY just make me want to move to some island and wall myself away from the rest of the world. All three groups have put me off so badly lately (the dems won't defund the war but they pass a BS piece of legislation they know will be vetoed so they can "send a message". The state guys ignore an important piece of legilature because they "don't like the way some of the lobbists acted". My local people are argueing like kindergardners about naming a building after someone when the local government is in the toliet & they are doing nothing to fix the situation. Can you tell my frustration level is at a peak. I thought our politicians were supposed to do what was good for the country & its people not themselves & their jobs.
    *sigh*
    I need to go find a dandelion patch to sit in for a while.... (5pts to anyone that gets that ref)
     
  10. USMC - Retired

    USMC - Retired New Member

    5,215
    0
    0
    Not a big fan of Bloom County myself but I'll apply the five points towards your NRA membership thus discounting it down to a mere $25.


    Give the 800 Pound Gorrilla a chance. No other pro-gun group has the same impact at the national level.
     
  11. Taler

    Taler New Member

    1,089
    0
    0
    I think that is Tinker's concern.
     
  12. Foul

    Foul New Member

    780
    0
    0
    As an alternative...

    http://www.gunowners.org/

    No offense intended USMC, just my "drug of choice" in the 2nd amendment fight.

    We're 2 different spears pointing at the same target. :p
     
  13. USMC - Retired

    USMC - Retired New Member

    5,215
    0
    0
    No offense taken, I'm a GOA member as well. I figure there's more chance that I can have an impact by joining both. I have always tried to take every step I can and hope that whatever I do helps.
     
  14. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    Would that be a chance to F everything up?
     
  15. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    238
    63
    :rotfl:

    I do not yet have a membership number or anything, but once I do, these people at the NRA are going to be hearing from me about one particular state law issue and one particular federal law issue.

    Change them from the inside, right?

    I wonder whether any other NRA members are doing the same about the DC Personal Protection Act?
     
  16. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    238
    63
    Will not do anything more, I guess he means, since attempting to forcibly consolidate Parker with Seegars and then introducing this same bill last session both failed to derail Parker.
     
  17. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    238
    63
    The response:
    ___________________________________________________________________________________
    Ed,

    Thanks for the encouragement on Parker. If you want to see the case go to the Supreme Court, where I believe we will succeed, please make sure to contact your congressional delegation and urge them to OPPOSE the so-called "DC Personal Protection Act." This legislative repeal of the laws we defeated in court would have the effect of mooting our case and vacating the D.C. Circuit's opinion. It would have been a great idea for Congress to repeal the D.C. gun ban in 1977. In 2007, it's a little late and very counterproductive. We hope to have someone introduce alternative legislation that helps implement the Parker decision rather than destroy it. As I'm sure you appreciate, if our case doesn't make it to the Supreme Court, some other case -- almost certainly a criminal case -- will.

    D.C. can keep enforcing the law because per the circuit's rules, the issuance of the mandate is stayed until 7 days following denial of en banc review or the decision of the court en banc. D.C. has 30 days to file their petition for en banc review. I'm sure they'll do it, and then I am sure we will be ordered to respond to it (under the court's rules we are not allowed to respond but must if ordered by a judge, which appears highly likely).

    Personally I do not believe D.C. can get a collective rights majority in this circuit. There may be enough votes for en banc review, because there are many judges on the circuit who have indicated a hostility to the circuit's decision in Navegar, and Parker is a great vehicle for undoing Navegar. Having said that, obviously we'd prefer just to get on with the case.

    Good luck to you in Georgia and let me know if there is anything I can do to help you there.

    Thanks,
    Alan
     
  18. Tinkerhell

    Tinkerhell Active Member

    2,417
    1
    38