D.C. response

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by Vir Quisque Vir, Sep 25, 2007.

  1. Vir Quisque Vir

    Vir Quisque Vir New Member

    703
    0
    0
    http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/a ... s_gun.html

    Can you BELIEVE that having a shotgun or rifle with a lock on it, or have it disassembled is a storage or safety issue? :shock:

    THAT is one of the ridiculous claims of D.C. in their response to lifting the ban in place while D.C. goes to SCOTUS! I think the appeals court thought D.C. was really going to appeal the constitutionality issue and they side-stepped it because they knew it was UNconstitutional in the first place. I sincerely hope SCOTUS steps up to the plate. Politically, if you will excuse the pun, this is an explosive issue.
     
  2. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    This is new but still I remember reading this sentance somewhere else...
    So this would be the second time I have read that Heller's reply to DC's cert. will be filed before the 5th.
     

  3. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    anyway as to this, I don't see how a judge ruling that 3 things are not constitutional and the appeal is only of 2 out of the 3, why that last part will be considered at all.

    I don't understand how if you ask SCOTUS if handguns are banned is it a violation of the 2nd and SCOTUS' ruling on that would have any effect on the 2nd regarding shotguns and rifles.

    It doesn't matter if DC claims it is a safety issue, the court has already determined that is wrong.

    Aparently DC thinks that you can appeal it by almost not even mentioning it. That if they win on those first 2 items means the 3rd gets thrown in too.

    I also wonder if this statement is provable as false:
    I guess you would have to argue if making your rifle unsafe for self defense makes it an unlawful weapon, then what DC said is nothing.
     
  4. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    Motion to lift stay has been denied. There is a terribly interesting footnote in this per curiam order which I find fascinating. You don't typically get these sort of things.

    And then this:



    The Supremes are not amused by new arguments made for the first time in their court. I suspect this order was a shot over DC's bow by the COA for the chicanery they pulled in the cert petition. Despite denying the motion, the CoA is clearly not on DC's side in this matter.
     
  5. wsweeks2

    wsweeks2 New Member

    6,306
    0
    0
    This is a candidate for understatement of the year.
     
  6. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    Today, 10/12, is the deadline for DC's response to the cross-petition to reinstate the other plaintiffs, as well as they may file a reply brief. I have not seen these items posted anywhere yet.
     
  7. Vir Quisque Vir

    Vir Quisque Vir New Member

    703
    0
    0
    Only news I found to date was on Scotus blog

    "Today is the deadline for the District of Columbia to respond to the cross-petition in the D.C. guns case, Parker v. District of Columbia (07-335). The District may also file a reply brief in its own appeal, District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290)."

    D.C. has the right to file a reply brief to its own appeal (v. Heller), so we will see one or two responses from D.C. soon. I suspect after they have time to read and digest it, Gura will put it (them?) up on the firm's site.
     
  8. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,017
    1,419
    113
    Oct 4 2007 Brief of respondent Dick Anthony Heller in opposition filed.
    Oct 5 2007 Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union filed.
    Oct 5 2007 Brief amici curiae of American Acdemy of Pediatrics, et al. filed.
    Oct 5 2007 Brief amici curiae of New York, Hawaii, Illinois, and Maryland filed.
    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-290.htm
     
  9. fallison

    fallison Guest

    895
    0
    0
    Is there anywhere we can read the Oct. 5 briefs?
     
  10. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    Here is the city's brief on the cross-petition standing issue for the 4 other plaintiffs: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content ... -12-07.pdf

    This brief is not particularly interesting to the general public. The city does say that it has no particular interest in defending the CoA's decision on the standing of the 4. They do however want to limit the issue to handguns. I wonder if they can?

    Boy, this case is fun!!
     
  11. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    in fact I just checked the AG pages for each of those states and not a one of them mention it, much less post the actual brief.
     
  12. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    I notice they are still ignoring that functional ban was ruled unconstitutional.
     
  13. Wiley

    Wiley Guest

    2,609
    0
    0
    As is the ACRU. They limit their AC brief to just the handgun question, ignoring the functional firearm ban.

    Not sure if it's more harm than help.
     
  14. Vir Quisque Vir

    Vir Quisque Vir New Member

    703
    0
    0
  15. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,017
    1,419
    113
  16. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,017
    1,419
    113
    This one is only 7 pages, and man, is it weak. They certainly did a better job on this argument below.
     
  17. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    Based on my amateur read of the Sup Ct. rules and the case list schedules, I would guess this one (actually both petition and cross-petition) will be on the Oct. 24 list for consideration at the Nov. 9th conference by the justices. We should know that following Monday if cert is granted, although grants are sometimes disclosed later on that Friday. I suppose it could get pushed to the Nov. 20 conference. DC could still file a reply brief to the brief in opposition, but the case distribution schedule is not altered by those filings. If they are going to file such a reply brief, it will probably be today, 10/19.
     
  18. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,017
    1,419
    113
    I met Clarence Thomas last night. I so badly wanted to ask him about this . . . but restrained myself. :lol:
     
  19. GAGunOwner

    GAGunOwner Active Member

    You didn't take me to see him too? LOL. I'm jealous :wink: . Wherever Justice Thomas hangs out is where I'd like to be. The man is awesome!

    You should have said something, even though I doubt he would have ever said anything is response.

    Where did you meet him? Just curious.