As rightly predicted by George Mason, "Now, Sir, if an attempt should be made to establish tyranny over the people, here are ten miles square, where the greatest offender may meet protection...Felons may receive assuylum there and in their strong holds." George Mason, The Proposed Federal District Might Become a Sanctuary for Criminals, The Papers of George Mason, Vo. 3, p.1082 (1970).

“But your first object should be a well regulated Militia Law; the People, put under good Officers, would behave in quite another Manner; and not only render real Service as Soldiers, but would protect, instead of distressing, the Inhabitants. What I would wish to have particularly insisted upon, in the New Law, should be, that every Man, capable of bearing Arms, should be obliged to turn out, and not buy off his Service by a trifling fine. We want Men, and not Money. I have the honor to be, etc." George Washington to Governor William Livingston (NJ), January 24, 1777.

I wonder why they want new briefs, I guess they didn't like their lasts ones. : )"

So is the time frame weeks, months?

A completely anticpated move.

Hrrm, nothing about standing. I'm really amazed by that. You would think they would have caught on to the weakness of their collective rights model a long time ago.

Since the City of Chicago is on record as supporting D.C.'s position, is there any recourse for Chicago residents to go on record supporting Parker?

I just love the government arguing that people don't have standing. What an easy way to dismiss grievances! I think that if the government wants to argue standing then they should have to provide a definition identifying who WOULD have standing and the definition can't exclude everybody. Clearly DC thinks the answer is nobody.

The very first sentence reads like it was written by a 10-year-old.