Joined
·
703 Posts
Sorry, old post, had wrong article
:?kkennett said:...with a decision by June of 2008.
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.kkennett said:DC asked for 30 extra days from the Chief Justice and was granted it, thus making the deadline 9/6/07.
Huh? Did Fenty have Parker removed with extreme prejudice? I hadn't heard.kkennett said: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.
The three judges on the Circuit panel agreed that one of the six Washington residents who filed the challenge did have a right to go to court to make the challenge. That individual was Dick Anthony Heller, a D.C. special police officeer who is allowed to carry a handgun on duty as a guard at the Federal Judicial Center, but wishes to have one at his home; he said he lives in a high-crime neighborhood in Washington. He applied for and was denied registration to own a handgun for personal use.
The majority opinion appears to strike down the D.C. law's flat ban on registering handguns, so far as it applies to having a gun "within the home or on possessed land," and its requirement of a license for a gun within the home or on "possessed land." That is what the six challengers sought in their lawsuit, and what the Circuit Court panel said it was ordering.
Judge Henderson, in dissent, argued that Heller only had a right to challenge the denial of a permit for his pistol under a specific section of the local law, and disputed the majority view that Heller had successfully challenged not only the provision that led to the denial of a permit for possession, but also provisions requiring guns to be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or barring the carrying of any pistol not registered. The majority found those clauses, too, to be unconstitutional, as restricting Heller's right under the Second Amendment to have a gun available for personal protection in his home.
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).Wiley said:Huh? Did Fenty have Parker removed with extreme prejudice? I hadn't heard.kkennett said: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.
NEVER MIND. I found this on SCOTUSblog, which answers my question (and raises more).
The three judges on the Circuit panel agreed that one of the six Washington residents who filed the challenge did have a right to go to court to make the challenge. That individual was Dick Anthony Heller, a D.C. special police officeer who is allowed to carry a handgun on duty as a guard at the Federal Judicial Center, but wishes to have one at his home; he said he lives in a high-crime neighborhood in Washington. He applied for and was denied registration to own a handgun for personal use.
The majority opinion appears to strike down the D.C. law's flat ban on registering handguns, so far as it applies to having a gun "within the home or on possessed land," and its requirement of a license for a gun within the home or on "possessed land." That is what the six challengers sought in their lawsuit, and what the Circuit Court panel said it was ordering.
Judge Henderson, in dissent, argued that Heller only had a right to challenge the denial of a permit for his pistol under a specific section of the local law, and disputed the majority view that Heller had successfully challenged not only the provision that led to the denial of a permit for possession, but also provisions requiring guns to be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or barring the carrying of any pistol not registered. The majority found those clauses, too, to be unconstitutional, as restricting Heller's right under the Second Amendment to have a gun available for personal protection in his home.
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".The three judges on the Circuit panel agreed that one of the six Washington residents who filed the challenge did have a right to go to court to make the challenge. That individual was Dick Anthony Heller, a D.C. special police officeer who is allowed to carry a handgun on duty as a guard at the Federal Judicial Center, but wishes to have one at his home; he said he lives in a high-crime neighborhood in Washington. He applied for and was denied registration to own a handgun for personal use.
No, I underlined why he was deemed to have standing and the others were not... because they had not applied, he did.Wiley said: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".The three judges on the Circuit panel agreed that one of the six Washington residents who filed the challenge did have a right to go to court to make the challenge. That individual was Dick Anthony Heller, a D.C. special police officeer who is allowed to carry a handgun on duty as a guard at the Federal Judicial Center, but wishes to have one at his home; he said he lives in a high-crime neighborhood in Washington. He applied for and was denied registration to own a handgun for personal use.
Do government employees have a higher standing under the law than the common citizen?
Right. It is an issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. This standing issue is what the NRA screwed up in their Seegars case.Gunstar1 said:No, I underlined why he was deemed to have standing and the others were not... because they had not applied, he did.Wiley said: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".The three judges on the Circuit panel agreed that one of the six Washington residents who filed the challenge did have a right to go to court to make the challenge. That individual was Dick Anthony Heller, a D.C. special police officeer who is allowed to carry a handgun on duty as a guard at the Federal Judicial Center, but wishes to have one at his home; he said he lives in a high-crime neighborhood in Washington. He applied for and was denied registration to own a handgun for personal use.
Do government employees have a higher standing under the law than the common citizen?
Gottcha.Malum Prohibitum said:It is an issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
**************************************************
25. Parker v. DC now known as DC v. Heller for appeals process
**************************************************
Jeff Knox of The Firearms Coalition writes:
Activists should be aware of the fact that as the "Parker" case heads to appeal at the Supreme Court, it is no longer known as Parker v. DC.
The pleading for certiorari will be titled "District of Columbia v. Heller" since Heller was the only plaintiff in the original case who was actually found to have legal standing and the roles have switched for the appeal.
This change has made it difficult for many people trying to keep up with the case to locate information since they were searching for the wrong case title. The Supreme Court did grant the Districts request for more time to file their appeal and that time runs out on September 5.
One of the primary reasons for the requested delay -- and probably for the decision to appeal itself -- is the fact that DC has managed to hire a prominent anti-gun law professor to head up their case. The
Professor only became available in the past month or so and they wanted him to be able to supervise the whole shebang. (Or at least that's what I think.)
I am currently writing a short piece on this subject for inclusion in the upcoming edition of the Hard Corps Report which we hope to have in the mail next week. If you do not currently receive the HCR, all it takes is a donation (or really just a request, but we much prefer requests that are accompanied by a donation to help defray our costs.)
Remember that your CongressCritters are home this month; make sure they get voting advice from you while they're in town.
Why is this? I haven't been following very closely.The pleading for certiorari will be titled "District of Columbia v. Heller" since Heller was the only plaintiff in the original case who was actually found to have legal standing and the roles have switched for the appeal.
From the opinion:budder said:Why is this? I haven't been following very closely.The pleading for certiorari will be titled "District of Columbia v. Heller" since Heller was the only plaintiff in the original case who was actually found to have legal standing and the roles have switched for the appeal.