[Vir Quisque Vir]

Sorry, old post, had wrong article

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

That is a May 9 story, sir. :wink:

 

[Wiley]

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.)

 

[kkennett]

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.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Thanks for the timeline, kkennett.

 

[Tinkerhell]

...with a decision by June of 2008.

:?

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

 

[Wiley]

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.

 

[kkennett]

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.

 

[kkennett]

DC asked for 30 extra days from the Chief Justice and was granted it, thus making the deadline 9/6/07.

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.

 

[Vir Quisque Vir]

omit

 

[Wiley]

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.

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).

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.

 

[Gunstar1]

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.

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).

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]

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.

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?

 

[Gunstar1]

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.

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?

No, I underlined why he was deemed to have standing and the others were not... because they had not applied, he did.

 

[Wiley]

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. :?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

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.

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?

No, I underlined why he was deemed to have standing and the others were not... because they had not applied, he did.

Right. It is an issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. This standing issue is what the NRA screwed up in their Seegars case.

 

[Wiley]

It is an issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Gottcha.

 

[Wiley]

From the VCDL newsletter 8-20-2007

**************************************************
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.

 

[budder]

Re: From the VCDL newsletter 8-20-2007

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.

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

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Re: From the VCDL newsletter 8-20-2007

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.

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

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.