« New vs. Old Media | Main | John Lott on Philadelphia and gun control »
DC to file for cert in Parker
SCOTUSBlog has the story.
The press release, which I'll paste in extended remarks below, says they will ask for an extension of time to Sept. 5 to file.
That'd make the timetable roughly:
Petition: Sept. 5
Response due 30 days after petition is docketed, roughly Oct. 5.
Court returns to start new Term ... first Monday in October is a holiday, so I don't know if that counts, but either Oct. 9 or 15. It rules on the petition when it gets to it.
If it grants, DC's briefs are due 45 days from the grant -- let's guesstimate late November or early December -- Parker's briefs are due 35 days from that, maybe early January, and DC's reply would be due 35 days after that, say early to mid February.
Hat tip to reader Charlie Oldfield.
UPDATE: Here's the Brady Campaign press release on the filing. I find it rather strange. Nowhere does it say anything like "we applaud D.C.'s filing," or support it, or anything like that. It gripes a lot about the DC Circuit ruling, and says the obvious: a ruling would be the "most significant Second Amendment ruling in our history."
Government of the District of Columbia
Executive Office of the Mayor
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Dena Iverson
July 16, 2007 202.727.6914 (office) 202.340-7834 (mobile)
District to Take Gun Case to the Supreme Court
Appeal could be first Second Amendment case heard in nearly 70 years
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, joined by Attorney General Linda Singer and Police Chief Cathy Lanier, announced that the District of Columbia will seek to uphold the city’s 30-year old gun law and petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision in Parker v. District of Columbia.
“We have made the determination that this law can and should be defended and we are willing to take our case to the highest court in the land to protect the city’s residents,” said Mayor Fenty. “Our handgun law has saved countless lives – keeping guns out of the hands of those who would hurt others or themselves.”
On March 9, 2007, in a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down a District of Columbia ban on keeping handguns in homes as a violation of the Second Amendment. The decision did not address provisions barring possession of guns outside the home. The law has been in place for more than 30 years.
The ruling marked the first time that a federal appeals court has struck down a gun regulation on the grounds that the Second Amendment protects an individual's rights to bear arms. On May 8, the full DC Circuit Court denied the District’s petition for rehearing en banc in the case over the dissent of four judges.
After careful review and consideration, Fenty and Singer decided to take the city’s case to the Supreme Court, which has not taken up the issue of the Second Amendment in almost 70 years.
To meet the 90-day deadline to file a petition for certiorari, Attorney General Singer today will file a 30-day extension so that the city may file its request with the high court on September 5th.
“The Second Amendment does not prevent the District of Columbia, like other states, from enacting reasonable regulations to limit gun possessions and protect its residents. We believe that we are right as a matter of law and are hopeful we will prevail,” said Singer.
18 Comments | Leave a comment
I wonder if the SCOTUS will ask the Sol Gen for the views of the United States given that it is a constitutional question dealing with DC?
I then wonder what the US would say.
The Ashcroft Justice Department released their report explaining their support for the individual rights interpretation. I don't know if this is still the department's official position. However, Alberto Gonzales, in my opinion is no friend of the Second Amendment and the individual rights interpretation, so I think questioning the current US position is a very valid inquiry. I hope that the old position still stands.
It should be very interesting to see all maneuvers the high nine will engage to avoid giving a definitive decision upholding the second amendment.
We shouldn't expect them to read and interpret and rule in accordance with the constitution, they haven't done so on this issue in a hundred years. There will be all sorts of qualifications on the decision they do reach and we should expect them to hold only that there ruling applies to DC and leaves unmolested all the other venues where violation of the constitution is current.
I hope I am wrong, but history tells me that is the way to bet. Even the short history of this court does so. They have never ruled in a manner that returns rights to citizens. They have sided with one level of government over another, but I can think of no case where they made sweeping decisions that restored the citizen to supremacy at large.
I hope to be wrong. I'm betting the against my wishes, though.
straightarrow said...
"....to hold only that there ruling ....." should read "...to hold only that their ruling..."
Well, look at the bright side: The first thing DC has done is ask for an extension, on something for which they've already had months to prepare and decide, and for which the circuit court already admonished them in advance against delaying on... What does it say about your strength when your two opening moves are both delaying tactics? Mostly it says you got caught with your pants around your ankles.
So, ultimately, the near legendary incompetence of the DC gov't should work in our favor.
I think the arguments above for a very narrow decision are spot on. The last thing the SCOTUS will want to do is open up 20,000 laws to challenge based on one ruling on Parker. They aren't "upset the apple cart" kind of people: especially as an upheld Parker, combined with a correct reading of Miller basically throws the crown jewels of gun control right out the door.
When the test for what can be banned is 'what is useful to a militia is allowed', all the big gun control efforts get flushed.
The only thing that would remain is the "National Criminal Instant Check".
In that event, the anti's have two options: Add more people to the prohibited persons list, and attack the gunmakers with rules and regs to make the business unprofitable/ unworkable. Since they've already started down both those tracks with HR 2640 & the OSHA nonsense, maybe the Brady Bunch has already accepted that they don't have a leg to sand on from a Constitutional standpoint.
ANON posted:
"Since they've already started down both those tracks with HR 2640 & the OSHA nonsense, maybe the Brady Bunch has already accepted that they don't have a leg to sand on from a Constitutional standpoint."
The BB have –never– had anything of substance to stand upon.
If anything, they've been propped up by lies, deceits, half-truths, equivocation, dissembly and every kind of obfuscation, in the name of the 'politically correct.'
Hell, even the British can't read their own 'Bill of Rights' without managing to mangle it so far out-of-shape, that it would be unrecognizable to the period in which it was written!
There is ONLY ONE solution to this problem: Either the court comes to grips with the truth, swallows hard, and admits –UNEQUIVOCALLY– that the citizens of the several States –and the District– have (and always have had) a right to keep and bear arms, or it plays the end game of the Republic, sending it into a death spiral by denying the truth of the matter to please private interests.
The Second Art. of Amendment –IS– the tripwire, the fuse, the casus belli.
The court plays games at its own expense, and that of the Republic's.
TO E.J. Totty, I know the antis don't have leg to stand on! My point was that perhaps they've finally accepted it, and, consequently, will try a different tack.
In any event, I offer the following from the Brady Bunch FAQ (defending themselves as not being a gun 'ban' organization):
"We believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms."
"there are certain classes of weapons that should be out of bounds for private ownership. They include Saturday-night specials,... military-style assault weapons..., and .50-caliber sniper rifles, which serve no ordinary sporting purpose."
Wouldn't it be absolutely beautiful to see Alan Gura get up in front of the SCOTUS and quote the Brady site that 'law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms'?
... to quote the Brady site that only certain types of weapons should not be eligible for private ownership, which clearly implies that any other classes of weapons ARE suitable for private ownership, and therefore the Brady Center (as the leading anti-gun org in the US) implicitly supports the individual right interpretation?
... to quote the Brady site that modern semi-auto handguns are NOT on the list of weapons that the Brady Bunch thinks should be banned.
... and [in a potential follow on case (I hope)] quotes the Brady site that they acknowledge that 'assault weapons' are 'military-style' weapons, as distinct from actual military weapons.
I think there's even a quote or two from Paul Helmke himself that support the right to use guns for self defense. But I'll have to dig up reliable citations...
I find it absolutely dripping in irony that as the Brady Center tries to conceal it's true intentions, they give us ample ammunition (pun intended) to sink their arguments against DC's handgun ban. It's so delicious I can taste it! :)
“It ignored longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent [nope, strike 1], discounted the express language of the Second Amendment [nope, strike 2], and substituted the policy preferences of two federal judges for those of local elected officials and the citizens they represent [nope, strike 3]."
1) They didn't ignore precedent, they examined precedent carefully and disagreed with the Brady Campaign about what the precedent means.
2) They didn't discount the express language of the Second Amendment, they examined the language carefully and disagreed with the Brady Campaign about what the language means. If you read a right too broadly, as the Brady Campaign presumably thinks this court did, you can't honestly be said to have discounted the right's language. If anything you "overcounted" the language.
3) They didn't substitute the policy preferences of two federal judges for those of local elected officials and the citizens they represent, they struck down a statute for violating the Bill of Rights. When a court strikes down a statute as a violation of the Bill of Rights, the court is not saying anything about whether the policy judgement was a good one or not.
The Brady Campaign could argue in good faith that the D.C. Circuit was wrong about the precedent, wrong about the language of the Second Amendment, and wrong to strike down the statute, but instead they lyingly claimed that the D.C. Circuit ignored the precedent, discounted the language of the Second Amendment, and struck down the statute because they thought their policy jusdement was better than that of elected officials.
Has the Brady Campaign ever written anything that made sense and was honest?
"Has the Brady Campaign ever written anything that made sense and was honest?"
No.
Alas, ANON said: In that event, the anti's have two options: Add more people to the prohibited persons list, and attack the gunmakers with rules and regs to make the business unprofitable/ unworkable.
They could also attack possession and storage of ammuntion by classifying it as an 'explosive device' and making the burden of ownership unbearable for the militia.
I'm afraid that even a major blow is not the end of this argument for the simple reason that the long term trend is away from individual rights and liberties and towards authoritarianism. 'Inside the beltway' each branch of government looks to favor its own interests. It's the unspoken fallacy of the Republic form of government, at least in it's current form.
Until government is less powerful, until the Supreme Court neuters itself and the government whole, perhaps by expunging the Tax Court from the land, there is no one inside the beltway who represents 'us', the people, by representing our interests and empowering us.
After all, what IS our recourse if the SCOTUS rules in favor of Washington D.C.? SOL? End of story? Shut up and sit down?
How did we come to be at their mercy in the first place?
Wow. Just wow.
To think the court will be making this decision -- and right in the middle of presidential campaign season! The public pressure is likely to be high. And what of the outcome?
I, like many people, expect a narrow ruling should the court rule in our favor, leaving to future courts to decide the boundaries of our individual right to keep and bear arms. On the other hand I am hopeful that a positive ruling just might be greater than a narrow 5 to 4 decision, how does 7-2 sound? This is such a historic case, and logic, politics and the law are so overwhelmingly on our side that maybe even some of the liberal justices will rule the correct way.
But should the Supreme Court nullify the second amendment, the consequences would be very hard on the left in America. The gun owners of America would be outraged by the Court stripping them of thier fundamental right and money and volunteer workers would flood into pro-gun organizations to pro-gun politicicans. It could turn out to be the worst kind of nightmare for the Democratic Party.
I wonder if foreknowledge of that nightmarish consequence just might push some of the left-leaning Supreme Court justices to vote the right way over Parker even if they are more naturally inclined to side against us!
Brad wrote: "how does 7-2 sound?"
Impossible.
Ginsburg: No (effing) way
Souter: HA!
Breyer: HA! HA!
Stevens: No.
That leaves:
Scalia: pretty clear where he stands
Thomas: ditto
Roberts: here's hoping
Alito: ditto
Kennedy: ???? the "swing vote"
I'm thinking 5-4 is the best we can hope for.
Actually, Ginsburg might end up voting for it, with her on certain issues you can never really tell. This is one of them. Unless she's come out and said something flat out to the contrary that I'm unaware of?
Yeah, Ginsburg might be on our side on this one, oddly enough.
As for the Brady Campaign and their "support" for gun ownership except for the black and ugly, I think they're just trying to appear like they're not putting us on the "slippery slope," since that is political suicide. On the other hand, we all know that their tactics are just to get their foot back in the door, since they have been handed their hat in the last decade.
This one is interesting in that the central issue is whether to uphold the lower court which ruled unambiguously that the Second Amendment means what it says: Individual citizens do indeed have a right to keep and bear arms. While the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on this issue, it is certainly an issue that does not lack "ripeness" so to speak, and it certainly involves the rights of all citizens throughout the nation.
Supreme Court precedent indicates that they will uphold the lower court. Again, while the court has never directly decided the issue, it has, in a variety of other cases, very clearly indicated that the Second Amendment protects an individual right in the same way that the First and Fourth amendments do.
If the lower court is upheld, it would be hard to imagine how governments would get over the compelling governmental interest test likely to be applied for restriction of the right, particularly since all competen scholarship indicates that gun control has no effect whatever on crime, and in fact, does have the opposite effect.
We do indeed live in interesting times.
I don't think there is any way the court is NOT going to find for DC. If you look at the precedents in their trend over the past few decades, the court has ALWAYS cut the meaning out of any amendment to the Bill of Rights and expanded the power of government.
Think Kelo. TSA. McCain-Feingold. The court is as corrupt as the rest of the government.
This will be the final destruction of any Bush legacy.
It's like they are TRYING to inflame a revolution.
Robert,
I have held the thought for about four or five years that there are parts of the .gov that are trying to start a civil war,
the OSHA bs just being the latest item.
a reversal of Parker might expand the political gun rights scope but it would more likely produce really draconian gun regs, eg Austrialia(including likey, confiscation attempts, note attempts) which in turn get hot/hostile reception
praying the SCOTUS finds a brain and an copy of Blacks Law dictinary.
r
I've thought that if the SCOTUS ever heard an appeal of Parker case they would decide: yes it is an individual but it could be restricted for reasons of public safety, etc., as long as those restrictions d not interfere w/ the basic individual right. In other words echo what the District Court said in the Parker (see see pages 53-54):
“That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989) (“[G]overnment may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech . . . .”). Indeed, the right to keep and bear arms—which we have explained pre-existed, and therefore was preserved by, the Second Amendment—was subject to restrictions at common law. We take these to be the sort of reasonable regulations contemplated by the drafters of the Second Amendment. For instance, it is presumably reasonable “to prohibit the carrying of weapons when under the influence of intoxicating drink, or to a church, polling place, or public assembly, or in a manner calculated to inspire terror . . . .” State v. Kerner, 107 S.E. 222, 225 (N.C. 1921). And as we have noted, the United States Supreme Court has observed that prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons does not offend the Second Amendment. Robertson, 165 U.S. at 281-82.Similarly, the Court also appears to have held that convicted felons may be deprived of their right to keep and bear arms. SeeLewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (citing Miller, 307 U.S. at 178.) These regulations promote the government’s interest in public safety consistent with our common law tradition. Just as importantly, however, they do not impair the core conduct upon which the right was premised.”
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf
Going to be interesting as to how the above is interpreted & applied....
I think this is great news for the pro individual rights side! I'm no legal expert or scholar, but if DC does indeed present their case based on questions regarding the four main points discussed in SCOTUSBlog, I believe there is ample historical records to answer each of these questions in favor of the individual rights interpretation. It does make me wonder, however, if the DC people have something tricky up their sleeves, or are they really that terribly informed, or just very misinformed?