Cross-petition filed in Parker
It's in pdf here. Basically, the Parker ruling was that five of six plaintiffs did not have standing to sue since they had not been threatened with prosecution, but that one (who applied for and was denied a handgun permit) did have standing. The Circuit then ruled in favor of that one. This cross-petition seeks to establish that the others (who include Parker) should be allowed to sue, also.
Standing is very wierd here. I just wrote a law rev. article on it. Supreme Court rulings over the last thirty years have made it reasonably clear that if your conduct is inhibited by a law you argue is unconstitutional, that's enough "injury in fact" to have standing to sue. But in the 6th, 9th and DC Circuits, there is a much stricter standard, not for all cases, only for ones challenging firearms laws. Then you don't have "injury in fact" unless you are personally threatened with prosecution, or prosecuted. (Or at least have some other special qualifier: in the 6th, you're an FFL, or in DC, the gun you make is specifically named in an assault weapon ban).