So, S. Ct. or no?
Appellees' petition for rehearing en banc and the response thereto were circulated to the full court, and a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges eligible to participate did not vote in favor of the petition. Upon consideration of the foregoing and appellees' Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) letter, it is ORDERED that the petition be denied.
Maybe Henderson believes in stare decisis?Malum Prohibitum said:Henderson was the dissenting vote on the three judge panel opinion. Odd that she would want to dissent but would not want to rehear it? Griffith joined the majority opinion but did not vote to rehear it, but what about Silberman?
Silberman is a senior judge and not eligible to vote for en banc hearings. One conservative judge, Randolph, voted to rehear, presumably to deal with the standing conflicts with the previous DC cases and to take care of the split between DC courts on the issue. I think that why judges vote to rehear can have many factors not associated with their opinions on the merits. Either way, on to the S Ct.Malum Prohibitum said:but what about Silberman?
D.C. Petition for Rehearing of Gun Ban Case Denied
Supreme Court likely to be District's next step
WASHINGTON, May 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, in a 6-4 vote, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied a motion
by the D.C. government to reconsider the court's blockbuster opinion in
Parker v. District of Columbia. On March 9, the court held in Parker that
"the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms,"
striking down a 31-year old ban on guns in the nation's capital. Moreover,
the court continued, activities protected by the Amendment "are not limited
to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right
contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the
That means the D.C. handgun ban is unconstitutional and, unless the
Supreme Court overturns the Parker decision, the ban will have to be
lifted. Most likely, the D.C. government will now ask the Supreme Court to
review the appellate court decision. If so, the high court could decide
this summer whether to take the case.
"If the Supreme Court grants review, the citizens of this country will
finally have a foursquare pronouncement from the nation's highest court
about the real meaning of the Second Amendment," said Cato Institute senior
fellow Robert Levy, who acted as plaintiff's co-counsel. "That's good news.
For those of us who have long argued that the Second Amendment secures an
individual's right to own a firearm for personal protection, the D.C.
Circuit has confirmed that the Constitution is on our side."
The full text of the original complaint, Parker v. District of
Columbia, is available at http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/gunsuit.pdf.
The Cato Institute is a nonpartisan public policy research foundation
dedicated to broadening policy debate consistent with the traditional
American principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets
Contact: Susan Semeleer, senior manager of media relations,
202-789-5212; [email protected]
SOURCE CATO Institute
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Gun Rights in D.C. [Ramesh Ponnuru]
The D.C. Circuit will not be re-hearing the Parker case en banc. The government of the District of Columbia has to decide whether to seek Supreme Court review of the decision, which invalidated the city's strict laws against guns. Robert Levy, the lawyer for the so-far victorious would-be gun owners of the District, tells NR that he would not oppose the city's petition: "Our goal from the beginning has been to get a foursquare pronouncement from the Supreme Court on the real meaning of the Second Amendment."
The case has split gun-rights activists in the past, with some of them fearing that asking the Court to pronounce on the matter could set back their cause if it leads to a disappointing answer [any ideas on who this could be? :roll: ]. But Levy says he is finding less resistance now. Optimism about how the Court would resolve the issue has increased thanks to the replacement of Justice O'Connor by Justice Alito. Nodding to the political circumstances of the moment, he adds that "the Court is probably better than itâ€™s going to be. So for folks who do want review the timing may be just right."
Even if the Court takes the case, Levy warns, it could duck the Second-Amendment issue in various ways, such as by finding that Levy's clients didn't have standing to sue. If the Court took the case and affirmed the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment, meanwhile, it would set up further litigation on two questions: What regulations run afoul of those rights, and can the federal courts apply those rights against state governments?
Levy stresses that "affirming an individual-rights perspective is not equivalent to a right for everyone to challenge registration requirements" or other regulations, and thinks that this point might help liberal justices rule in his clients' favor. â€œI wouldnâ€™t write off Ruth Bader Ginsburg or any of the other ones.â€
05/08 04:13 PM
May 8, 2007
D.C. Gun Laws Likely Headed to Supreme CourtWhen in early March the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the District's restrictive gun laws were unconstitutional, over 70 years of legal thinking on the Second Amendement was upended and the nationwide debate over gun control was given new life. And with another decision by the court today, it looks like the matter will be settled by the Supreme Court.
We've just learned that this morning the Court of Appeals denied the District's request for a new hearing before the full court, effectively pushing the case, Parker vs. District of Columbia, to the Supreme Court. The case, originally presented by six District residents, argued that the city's gun laws, which date back to 1976 and forbid the ownership of handguns, unconstitutionally limited the residents' Second Amendment rights.
Until this case was decided, many legal experts and courts had adopted an interpretation of the Second Amendment indicating that gun ownership was a collective right, but the new ruling disagreed, declaring that it was an individual right that could not be subjected to blanket prohibitions. The New York Times reported on Sunday that a number of prominent legal scholars, including liberal thinkers, have come to believe that the Founding Fathers intended gun ownership to be a matter of personal, not collective choice. The last time the Supreme Court dealt with a Second Amendment case of this scope was in 1939.
UPDATE: You can read more about the Court's refusal to rehear en banc a test case on the validity of the law over at SCOTUSblog.
No.Mike from Philly said:What happens if the Supremes rule that the 2nd is an individual right? Do all gun control infringements (Brady, Yellow Forms, Carry laws) go away?
I would think that it would come in handy when pursuing changes to GA carry laws. I'm not going to count my chickens before the eggs hatch though. A SCOTUS decision could be exactly what gun owners have always been wanting, or it could be a shot in the back, only time will tell. Has anyone heard rumors about whether they will hear it or when.Mike from Philly said:Am I correct in thinking that GCO will agressively use a favorable Supreme Court judgement in Georgia?
Yes. Such a limited question cannot come out of Georgia, though, becuase we do not have similar restrictions to D.C., so it would have to be combined with another question about what the Second Amendment protects, for example, openly carrying a firearm or carrying a firearm too near a bus stop on a public sidewalk, if such a crazy law still exists in Georgia by the time this all comes about.Gunstar1 said:Wouldn't the next step, if SCOTUS said the 2nd was individual, be to get the 2nd incorporated to the states by the 14th?