Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Alito's dissents | Main | AZ appellate decision on negligent entrustment »

Uodate on Parker case

Posted by David Hardy · 3 November 2005 04:07 PM

Word from Bob Levy, attorney for appellants in Parker (which challenges the DC gun law) is that the DC Circuit denied the DC gov't's motion to summarily affirm (the dismissal below) on standing grounds, and ordered that the issue be addressed in briefs. (As he notes, they're not out of the woods yet on standing, but at least they've survived the first attack). Wording of order follows.

Upon consideration of the initial motion to issue a briefing schedule and set oral argument on the merits, the opposition thereto and motion for summary affirmance, the reply to the opposition to the initial motion and opposition to the motion for summary affirmance, the reply to the opposition to the motion for summary affirmance, the second motion to issue a briefing schedule and set oral argument on the merits, the opposition thereto, the reply, the motion to remand with instructions to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance and the motion to remand with instructions to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary affirmance be denied.

The merits of the parties’ positions are not so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam).

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to issue a briefing schedule and set oral argument on the merits be granted. The Clerk is instructed to calendar this case for presentation to a merits panel, and the parties are instructed to address both standing and the merits of the case in their briefs.

· contemporary issues

1 Comment | Leave a comment

Alan Gura | November 3, 2005 4:54 PM | Reply

Our firm has split up. I am happy to be practicing under the new auspices of Gura & Possessky, PLLC, and will continue to represent the plaintiffs as before.

We will also continue to provide the relevant pleadings and orders on our new website.

Links available from here:

http://www.gurapossessky.com/newsandresources.htm

It is true that we are once again being asked to addressed standing. However, the D.C. Circuit is also asking for briefing and argument on the merits.

We look forward to complying with the Court's order.

Leave a comment