[kkennett]

The Parker case got a step closer today. DC filed a motion for a stay of its ruling for 90 days, the time period to allow for a cert petition. They said they may file. These stays are routinely granted, but Judge Silbermann, author of the DC Circuit opinion, took the unusual step of noting that a stay just to put it off was not cool. His warning doesn't compel them to file, but does put them on a bit of notice.

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/a ... .html#more

 

[foshizzle]

Good. This board has changed my mind. I hope it goes all the way.

A new meaning to the word "Parkerized".

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Good. This board has changed my mind. I hope it goes all the way.

A new meaning to the word "Parkerized".

:righton:

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

(1) whether the [Circuit Court] panel decision conflicts with the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Miller (1939)

:?

Miller:

These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

The Miller test:

. . . that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense

supplied by themselves
of the kind in common use at the time
part of the ordinary military equipment
could contribute to the common defense

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

DC claims no party would suffer harm from a stay. What about people who go to jail because of this unconstitutional law?

Would anybody make an argument that ruling striking down a political speech restriction should be stayed for 90 days and that this would not cause harm?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Here is the actual court order. Silberman's warning is on page 2.