Parker v. DC Rehearing Denied!

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by Malum Prohibitum, May 8, 2007.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
  2. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    D.C. Court of Appeals No. 04-7041 dated May 8, 2007
     

  3. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    The entire thing:

     
  4. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    Dang, you beat me to it. Absolutely, S Ct. DC laid down the gauntlet with their 'life or death' language.
     
  5. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    A footnote to the order states: "Circuit Judges Randolph, Rogers, Tatel, and Garland would grant the petition for rehearing en banc." The following is the list of judges who voted on the petition, with affirmtive votes marked by an asterisk: "Ginsburg (Chief Judge), Sentelle, Henderson, Randolph,* Rogers,* Tatel,* Garland,* Brown, Griffith, and Kavanaugh."
     
  6. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    aaaawwwwwwww yyyyyyeeeeaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh
     
  7. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    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?
     
  8. rajl

    rajl New Member

    391
    0
    0
    Maybe Henderson believes in stare decisis?
     
  9. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    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.
     
  10. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stori ... 696&EDATE=

     
  11. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... JjYjcxODU=
     
  12. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    http://www.dcist.com/archives/2007/05/0 ... _hea_1.php

    [​IMG]

     
  13. Mike from Philly

    Mike from Philly New Member

    787
    0
    0
    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?
     
  14. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    No.

    Only the ones similar to the DC laws at issue. It would have no effect in most states.

    What it would do, however, is set the stage for new rounds of litigation. For example, can the state require a license to openly carry? Can the state make this or that place off limits to carry of weapons? Can the state regulate what type of weapons can be carried or kept in the home?

    I can't wait. :D
     
  15. Mike from Philly

    Mike from Philly New Member

    787
    0
    0
    Am I correct in thinking that GCO will agressively use a favorable Supreme Court judgement in Georgia?
     
  16. Watch_Their_Hands

    Watch_Their_Hands New Member

    775
    0
    0
  17. Adam5

    Adam5 Atlanta Overwatch

    13,207
    28
    48
    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.
     
  18. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    Wouldn't the next step, if SCOTUS said the 2nd was individual, be to get the 2nd incorporated to the states by the 14th?


    Anyway, most cases will probably be decided the same way anyhow. Depending on the judge, there really is not much difference between the laws under a colletive state right to restrict firearms and an individual right with "reasonable restrictions".
     
  19. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,041
    231
    63
    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.
     
  20. Watch_Their_Hands

    Watch_Their_Hands New Member

    775
    0
    0
    Here's hoping for positive changes. :cheers: