[Vir Quisque Vir]

See http://www.dcguncase.com/blog/ and follow as they add more info.

(Click on the Asking the D.C. Circuit link)

Note Added:

If I read this filing of Parker, et al. against D.C. correctly, it looks like the attorneys for D.C. v. Parker are now asking the Circuit Court of Appeals to drop the (unconstitutional) gun ban that was left in place while D.C. filed to SCOTUS. So this filing is at the Court of Appeals level. D.C. fibbed (prevaricated, lied) when they said they were going to ask for cert AND bring up the ban itself. D.C. only referred in their SCOTUS filing about the ban as a small footnote. That is, D.C. was full of sheisenpfeffer when they ignored the effective ban of rifles and shotguns because they had to be stored locked or apart, hence NON-functional. Basically, they have tried to hoodwink SCOTUS, BIG MISTAKE! So, really, the ban left in place for now covered ALL the firearms, including the terribly dangerous handgun. The remedy they are asking for it to dump the continued firearm ban forthwith (fast as hell, or faster). A lot shorter than their version, but keeps the spirit intact.

 

[Wiley]

You got it!!!! They are asking the DC Circuit Court to lift the stay of the order which the DCCC had put in place pending D.C.'s filing the petition with the SC.

D.C. and any one connected with this fiasco on the D.C. side is looking very stupid. Kinda like a certain Georgia probate judge who tried to pull the same thing with the US District Court of Apeals for the Northern District of Georgia. And got her nose bloodied by the Judge.

And if both us non-legal beagles can see it..... :rotfl2: opcorn: :rotfl2:

 

[Gunstar1]

Here is the Appeals Court decision DC forgot/decided not to contest.

Finally, there is the District’s requirement under D.C. Code § 7-2507.02 that a registered firearm be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by trigger lock or similar device, unless such firearm is kept at [a] place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.†This provision bars Heller from lawfully using a handgun for self protection in the home because the statute allows only for use of a firearm during recreational activities. As appellants accurately point out, § 7-2507.02 would reduce a pistol to a useless hunk of “metal and springs.†Heller does not appear to challenge the requirement that a gun ordinarily be kept unloaded or even that a trigger lock be attached under some circumstances. He simply contends that he is entitled to the possession of a “functional†firearm to be employed in case of a threat to life or limb. The District responds that, notwithstanding the broad language of the Code, a judge would likely give the statute a narrowing construction when confronted with a self-defense justification. That might be so, but judicial lenity cannot make up for the unreasonable restriction of a constitutional right. Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional.

Parker v. District of Columbia, No. 04-7041, (DC.App. 2007), http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/com ... -7041a.pdf
pg.57-58

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I am more and more impressed with Alan Gura with each document I read.

 

[kkennett]

I am more and more impressed with Alan Gura with each document I read.

This particular chess move intrigues me a great deal indeed. What I wonder is why Tom Goldstein played into this hand. Goldstein is an extremely accomplished Sup Ct. attorney. DC only brought him in late for help playing with the big boys. My suspicion is that he knew well that they were glossing over arguments, but had to do it in order to have any chance and potentially avoid a broad ruling on the 2A. Reading the cert petition (whatever right the 2A protects, etc.), they are trying to split hairs and get a narrow ruling on handguns in order to appease the national groups like the Brady bunch, who are afraid of a broad 2A ruling. He who frames the debate is usually the winner. Perhaps they either didn't see this move from Gura coming, or had to take the risk. Given Silbermann's completely unsolicited warning in the original stay order, I suspect this motion has a good chance.

Also, the Sup Ct. can grant cert on whatever question they want. The plaintiffs will file a reply to the cert petition and possibly try to present a different question, which the Supremes may accept as their question.

Man is this fun to watch. Folks like Gura who are at the top of their game are impressive.

 

[kkennett]

On a larger scale, I'm sure Goldstein, DC, et al. see the potential explosiveness of this case, the close division of the court, and the tendency of Kennedy to split the baby. If they could diffuse this whole thing by getting a narrow ruling, one way or the other, on a handgun ban and avoid putting gun owners front and center in the next election with a big 2A case, they will have earned their keep. I believe they are trying to thread one very small needle. Perhaps they will succeed, given the Sup Ct.'s apparent distaste for taking 2A cases.

 

[Gunstar1]

Also, the Sup Ct. can grant cert on whatever question they want. The plaintiffs will file a reply to the cert petition and possibly try to present a different question, which the Supremes may accept as their question.

Man is this fun to watch. Folks like Gura who are at the top of their game are impressive.

I can't wait to see what he comes up with in regards this little nugget:

Appellees cannot hide from the Supreme Court the fact that the functional firearms ban was struck down. In light of the petition, the Supreme Court may view the unconstitutionality of this provision as conceded. 3

3 But nothing prevents Appellants from defending this aspect of the judgment in the Supreme Court. Cf. Northwest Airlines v. County of Kent, 510 U.S. 355, 364 (1994) (“[a] prevailing party need not cross-petition to defend a judgment on any ground properly raised below, so long as that party seeks to preserve, and not to change, the judgmentâ€) (citations omitted); Lebron v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374, 379 (1995) (“[o]ur practice permits review of an issue not pressed so long as it has been passed uponâ€) (citations omitted).

 

[Vir Quisque Vir]

D.C. has until Sept 24th to reply to the filing for the latest Circuit Court case of Heller v. D.C. on lifting the handgun ban.

D.C. has not really appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals to date, nor has it really taken it forward to SCOTUS. Look forward to their reply at the Circuit Court. They have not denied the unconstitutionality of the ban.

Gura is sharp as a razor. Good to have him on the case. D.C.'s petition to SCOTUS looks like a 10th grader wrote it and not an accomplished attorney. Remember that SCOTUS is not bound by just the one question that D.C. put forward.