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 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Pdf flyer for documentary | Main | Gun smuggling to Mexico »

Parker case: stay of mandate

Posted by David Hardy · 25 May 2007 02:19 PM

DC petitioned the Circuit to stay the mandate until August 7, deadline for their filing a petition for cert. in the Supreme Court. The Circuit granted the stay (small pdf file). Judge Silberman appends a comment to the effect that DC has only said it "may" file a petition, but that he would view their filing this motion, and then not filing for cert., as an abuse of the system. An interesting comment, quite true, but also has a "bring it on" quality to it.

Note on procedure: when a higher court issues a ruling, that is followed by a mandate. The opinion says who won and why. The mandate is the actual order to the lower court to carry out the higher court's decision. It's delayed a bit, since someone may file for rehearing, etc..

· Parker v. DC

6 Comments | Leave a comment

tom gunn | May 25, 2007 7:53 PM | Reply

I smell a rat.

What will(can) the court do if they decide this was a ploy?

Can DC give up and then rewrite the offending law in a way that changes nothing?


tg

wrangler5 | May 25, 2007 8:00 PM | Reply

All the talk after Parker has been whether the District will seek certiorari or not. There were 5 plaintiffs who were dismissed for lack of standing (under a standard which the appellate court said did NOT comport with Supreme Court pronouncements on the issue.)

Is there any reason the dismissed plaintiffs couldn't file for cert, regardless of what the District does?

Jim | May 25, 2007 11:05 PM | Reply

If the dismissed plaintiffs do file for cert, can they do so for the entire case of just the standing issue?

Xrlq | May 26, 2007 11:36 AM | Reply

I can't imagine the SC would take the case if only the dismissed plaintiffs petitioned for cert, while the city of Washington, DC did not. If the court did take such a case, the only live issue for review would be the standing issue, and given the outcome of the underlying case, even that would appear to be moot.

CA_Police_State | May 26, 2007 1:24 PM | Reply

Wranglers wrote:
"If the dismissed plaintiffs do file for cert, can they do so for the entire case of just the standing issue?"


I'm 99% sure that they are allowed to raise other issues also and that's about as sure as I ever get about anything. They raise issues like evidence that was suppressed by the trial court, arguments the trial court refused to allow, any motions they made that were denied, any new evidence since the trial - it's an open book for them.

CA_Police_State | May 26, 2007 1:41 PM | Reply

EDIT - Maybe I attributed the quote to the wrong person and misread his post. I didn't notice that you said "dismissed plaintiffs" and I haven't read the case yet. I'm not sure who the "dismissed plaintiffs" are but I think they would be able to contest the trial court's ruling that dismissed them from the lawsuit if it's a civil suit.

Leave a comment