[Malum Prohibitum]

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 . . .

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Mr. Gura,

Congratulations on the great result in the Parker case, which I hope will be taken up by the Supreme Court. I have a question about the current enforcement of the DC law, however. Was the Circuit Court's judgment reversing the District Court stayed for some reason? Has DC filed a brief requesintg an en banc re-hearing? What exactly is it that permits D.C. to publicly state they will continue to enforce a law that has been declared unconstitutional?

For what it is worth, I am an attorney in Atlanta, and I am also the President of GeorgiaCarry.Org (which you can find at the internet address that is the same as the name). GCO has several lawsuits going in both federal and state courts, mostly focused on Georgia specific issues respecting the right to keep and bear arms.

Thanks you for your time in considering my question, and thank you for the work you have performed on this case.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

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 â€" 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 â€" now in the hands of selected senators â€"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 â€" 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.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

From the Liberty Papers, NRA v. Second Amendment.

In today’s Washington Examiner Robert Levy, one of the lead attorneys in the Parker v. District of Columbia case which recently resulted in a clear victory for an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, wonders why the National Rifle Association is pursuing a strategy that would prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on the case.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

: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?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

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€

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.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Mr. Gura,

Congratulations on the great result in the Parker case, which I hope will be taken up by the Supreme Court. I have a question about the current enforcement of the DC law, however. Was the Circuit Court's judgment reversing the District Court stayed for some reason? Has DC filed a brief requesintg an en banc re-hearing? What exactly is it that permits D.C. to publicly state they will continue to enforce a law that has been declared unconstitutional?

For what it is worth, I am an attorney in Atlanta, and I am also the President of GeorgiaCarry.Org (which you can find at the internet address that is the same as the name). GCO has several lawsuits going in both federal and state courts, mostly focused on Georgia specific issues respecting the right to keep and bear arms.

Thanks you for your time in considering my question, and thank you for the work you have performed on this case.

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

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

The en banc petition is due next week.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

How does it conflict with Miller? Makes me wonder whether they read it.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

"The Court should also allow new briefing both by the amici who filed briefs before the panel and by other amici who may be interested in and affected by the Court’s decision and who could contribute meaningfully to the Court’s understanding of the issues raised."

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

"For instance, the International Association of Chiefs of Police has expressed concern that the panel majority’s ruling will harm law- enforcement efforts . . ."

:x

:roll: