[Vir Quisque Vir]

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.

 

[Gunstar1]

This is new but still I remember reading this sentance somewhere else...

Attorneys for local resident Dick Anthony Heller, who had successfully challenged the pistol ban, have until Oct. 5 to reply to the city appeal, but are expected to file before that date.

So this would be the second time I have read that Heller's reply to DC's cert. will be filed before the 5th.

 

[Gunstar1]

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:

No one has ever been prosecuted in the city for using a lawful weapon in self-defense, it noted.

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.

 

[kkennett]

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.

3 The District of Columbia Council never contemplated the specific use of a rifle or shotgun in that situation. Had the Council contemplated such, it would, perforce, have had to consider the danger posed by a rifle’s range and a shotgun’s pellet spread, as well as the difficulty one would have handling such long weapons in enclosed spaces â€"
particularly by smaller individuals. Appellees’ brief at 17 did suggest that any gun (including a pre-1976 legal handgun) might be used in self defense in a “true emergency,†otherwise described as “genuine imminent danger.†But the Code does not allow for such, nor did the District ever specify how one would define the circumstances under which one could assemble or unlock a rifle or shotgun to face a “true emergency†(professionals might well be amused at such a hypothetical). The truth is that neither the Code nor the District, in this litigation, ever suggested that a rifle or shotgun, as opposed to a handgun, could be legally employed in self defense.

And then this:

In any event, the District’s petition for certiorari makes an alternative argument not presented in our court â€" that the District’s ban on handguns can be justified so long as rifles and shotguns can be utilized in the home for self protection. The Supreme Court, if it should reach that argument â€" and conclude it was constitutional to ban handguns in the home if long guns were permitted â€" would necessarily be obliged to consider the impact of Section 7-2507.02, since a disassembly or trigger lock requirement might render a shotgun or rifle virtually useless to face an unexpected threat.3
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
By:
Nancy G. Dunn
Deputy Clerk

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.

 

[wsweeks2]

The Supremes are not amused by new arguments made for the first time in their court.

This is a candidate for understatement of the year.

 

[kkennett]

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.

 

[Vir Quisque Vir]

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.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

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

 

[fallison]

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

Is there anywhere we can read the Oct. 5 briefs?

 

[kkennett]

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!!

 

[Gunstar1]

ACRU is all I could find
http://www.theacru.org/amicusbriefs/Hel ... gument.pdf

 

[Gunstar1]

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.

 

[Gunstar1]

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!!

I notice they are still ignoring that functional ban was ruled unconstitutional.

 

[Wiley]

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.

 

[Vir Quisque Vir]

D.C. response to cross-petition

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content ... -12-07.pdf

How about that, D.C. does not want to expand on their initial stupid single question to SCOTUS. :shock:

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Re: D.C. response to cross-petition

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/dc-response-07-335-10-12-07.pdf

How about that, D.C. does not want to expand on their initial stupid single question to SCOTUS. :shock:

They are claiming no standing, essentially, when citing Seegars.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

This one is only 7 pages, and man, is it weak. They certainly did a better job on this argument below.

 

[kkennett]

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.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I met Clarence Thomas last night. I so badly wanted to ask him about this . . . but restrained myself. :lol:

 

[GAGunOwner]

I met Clarence Thomas last night. I so badly wanted to ask him about this . . . but restrained myself. :lol:

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.