D.C. (Parker case) now on the 90-day clock

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by Vir Quisque Vir, Aug 8, 2007.

  1. Vir Quisque Vir

    Vir Quisque Vir New Member

    703
    0
    0
    Sorry, old post, had wrong article
     
  2. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    237
    63
    That is a May 9 story, sir. :wink:
     

  3. Wiley

    Wiley New Member

    2,609
    0
    0
    Please, I'm not being picky but:

    The date of the article was: Wednesday, May 09, 2007.

    D.C. asked for extra time to file in July(?) and the District Court said ok, but you damn well better file or we're going to have something to say about it.

    D.C. has said that they will file (catching a lot of gun grabber flack for it :lol: ) I "think" the deadline is the end of this month or early next. But don't hold me to it.

    (MP beat me to it but I rite gooder.)
     
  4. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    The original deadline for filing their Sup Ct. cert petition was 8/6/07. In a most extraordinary move, DC asked for 30 extra days from the Chief Justice and was granted it, thus making the deadline 9/6/07. Now technically, if the respondent takes all their allotted time, the petition will not be ready for review by the 'long conference' on 9/28 before the new term begins on the first Monday in October. They may well file quickly and get it in for that conference. Either way, the petition will be considered early in the term, probably scheduled for argument in December or January, with a decision by June of 2008.
     
  5. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    237
    63
    Thanks for the timeline, kkennett. :D
     
  6. Tinkerhell

    Tinkerhell Active Member

    2,417
    1
    38
    :?

    The wheels of justice turn slowly... *sigh*
     
  7. Wiley

    Wiley New Member

    2,609
    0
    0
    I'd put my money on D.C. using every and any tactic to delay fileing and the SC to take up the question of cert. And if cert. is granted to delay arguments and delay a decision after argument.

    It's not in their interest to have the issue settled.
     
  8. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    Wiley,

    Delay may very well be the desire of D.C., but once their cert petition is granted, they basically have no control of the timing. There are strict rules about when the briefs are due, the court simply fills its argument calendar, and the justices release decisions when they damn well please, getting them all out before the close of the term in June. In general, the Sup Ct are hard nuts and have very strict timelines for everyone but themselves.
     
  9. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    In the interest of complete thoroughness, I forgot that August has 31 days and was reminded of that in reading a story on this case. The cert petition is due on September 5, not 6.

    Also, you may begin to see this case referred to as 'Heller' instead of 'Parker', as Heller is the surviving plaintiff who had applied for a license in DC and been refused.
     
  10. Wiley

    Wiley New Member

    2,609
    0
    0
    Huh? Did Fenty have Parker removed with extreme prejudice? I hadn't heard.

    NEVER MIND. I found this on SCOTUSblog, which answers my question (and raises more).

     
  11. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    What questions did that raise for you? If it is regarding what was said in the dessent, that was just a bunch of anti-gun regurgitated crap (DC is not a state so it doesn't count).
     
  12. Wiley

    Wiley New Member

    2,609
    0
    0
    If a US Citizen can be denied standing in a federal court in a federal district but a mere police officer in the federal district is granted standing, I have to react by going "Hmmmm".

    Do government employees have a higher standing under the law than the common citizen?
     
  13. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    No, I underlined why he was deemed to have standing and the others were not... because they had not applied, he did.
     
  14. Wiley

    Wiley New Member

    2,609
    0
    0
    Wasn't there an appelate(?) case that addressed that issue? The appelate court holding that a plaintif did not have to do something that they knew would be denied to have standing?

    I'm soooo confused. :?
     
  15. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    237
    63
    Right. It is an issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. This standing issue is what the NRA screwed up in their Seegars case.
     
  16. Wiley

    Wiley New Member

    2,609
    0
    0
    Gottcha.
     
  17. Wiley

    Wiley New Member

    2,609
    0
    0
    From the VCDL newsletter 8-20-2007

     
  18. budder

    budder Moderator Staff Member

    Re: From the VCDL newsletter 8-20-2007

    Why is this? I haven't been following very closely.
     
  19. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,047
    237
    63
    Re: From the VCDL newsletter 8-20-2007

    From the opinion:
    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.