DC's reply on cert. in Parker

When can one expect a SCOTUS decision on whether it will grant cert?

c. Finally, Heller claims that the District’s laws improperly
prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves
given the inability of the police to provide complete protection.
Resp. 29-32. But, again, the straightforward answer is
that the District allows citizens to register rifles and shotguns
and use them in self-defense.

Isn't this an outright lie?

According to SCOTUS Blog (which I believe is authored by an attorney from the firm representing DC, the Justices will consider the case at the Nov. 9 conference and:

"The earliest that an order on the fate of the two cases would emerge is probably Monday, Nov. 12. The case, if granted, would probably be heard in February or March."

If the SCOTUS grants cert, the NRA should arrange a big march on D.C. to coincide with oral arguments like the other special interest groups do when they have cases before the Court. I might even travel to D.C. for that.

I like to drink at the Old Ebbitt.

I notice that the DC reply says that a locked down (disassembled) firearm may be ready for self defense in a "minute". In my use of force classes I have my students hold their breath for 20 seconds and I then walk slowly around the classroom so my students may understand what can take place during a period of 20 seconds. The DC attorney might try holding his/her breath for a minute.

A DC homeowner could die several times during a minute.

Isn't this an outright lie?

Generally, yes. There is no exemption in DC law for rendering a firearm functional for self-defense under any conditions.

The only supporting nuance is the notion of "doctrine of competing harms", a legal principle whereby an affirmative defense ("yes, your honor, I did break a law, but that's ok because...") can be made when obeying a law will cause more harm than disobeying a law. This, of course, is up to the judge & jury to decide - creating a situation where one may have to make a very difficult decision at the very moment where there is no time to decide, much less time to act beneficially on that decision.

Yes, DC is very much glossing over the time & effort required to transition from obedience to the law to acting in effective self-preservation. The "it just takes a minute" notion sounds short ... until Mr. Heller's lawyer asks the Supreme Court to pause proceedings for a minute, demonstrating the lie of DC's handwaving assertion.

So DC has decided that the decision was not what the decision clearly was, that their laws are not what their laws clearly are, and they want the Court to hear an appeal of just the part of the decision they think they can defend based upon their misrepresentation of, well, everything.

I gues if nothing else, this is a complete concession that their laws are clearly unconstitutional and can not stand as they truly are.

Letalis, I'm not sure in the face of the efforts of the NRA to derail Parker/Heller just which side they would be demonstrating on, are you?

You may not want to join them. I think they would rather have the money generating problem than a solution.

OK, then GOA can organize a march. Like I said, I like to drink at the Ebbitt.

Posted by: Jim at October 25, 2007 10:44 AM
[i]So now that the case has been almost completely briefed by the parties, maybe the Court should proceed directly to the decision.[/i]

Petitions for cert and subsequent response are not arguments. At this point, we've only had the appetizer...if the SCOTUS grants cert, there will be much, much more before any decison is made.

Posted by: straightarrow at October 25, 2007 03:58 PM

[i]Letalis, I'm not sure in the face of the efforts of the NRA to derail Parker/Heller just which side they would be demonstrating on, are you?

You may not want to join them. I think they would rather have the money generating problem than a solution.[/i]

Straightarrow, if you still hold that the NRA wishes to derail Parker/Heller, then you very much owe it to yourself (and your argument) to read the amici submitted by NRA to the DC District Court on behalf of the Petitioners.

It is, in my opinion, the best of all those submitted in support of Petitioners.

"Isn't this an outright lie?"

Yes. While, technically, it is not a crime to shoot someone in self defense, you cannot do so without breaking any number of other laws.

The prohibition on operable arms is well documented (DC ST § 7-2507.02), but what gets rather less coverage is that it is also a crime to fire a round (no exception for self defense) without the advance written permission of the chief of police.

Direct quote from the materials handed out by the Gun Registration Unit (UN937 Rev.7/97 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE REGISTRATION OF FIREARMS) under "Duties and Responsibilities of Registrant":
"No firearm shall be discharged in the District of Columbia without first obtaining a special written permit from the Chief of Police authorizing the discharge."

"Straightarrow, if you still hold that the NRA wishes to derail Parker/Heller, then you very much owe it to yourself (and your argument) to read the amici submitted by NRA to the DC District Court on behalf of the Petitioners."-Carl

I have. But here is my problem. They were forced to the table by an issue that outran their ability to control it or derail it. In that political and public relations pressure forced them to reverse their position, I don't trust them to remain faithful to their presently stated position.

I would be less suspicious of their "Come to Jesus" epiphany if it had been driven by actual principle and belief in the right to keep and bear arms, rather than their desire to remain in the spotlight after realizing they could not control nor derail direction of the original suit.

My original position stands.

I met the head of the NRA derailing effort last year (Halbrook) and although I pissed him off somewhat with my questions, I did get the explanation that they were worried because:
-when Parker/Heller was filed the supreme court looked like it wouldn't give an individual rights holding. Remember, this was back when O'Conner was on the supreme court and we had 3-2-4 split favoring the liberal 4
-none of the guys handling the case had appellate experience and they thought it was going to end up as another Silviera v Lockyer.

The court has since changed for the better and Gura/Levy/Neilly have proven that they are actually quite skilled at this litigation thing. In other words, the reasons for wanting to kill the case with joinder motions or legislative acts are all gone now.

I think that their reasons for wanting to derail the case were fair and I think that their sincerity in not wanting to derail the case now is also real.

"Jim W" posted on October 27, 2007 at 12:12 PM:

"I met the head of the NRA derailing effort last year (Halbrook) and although I pissed him off somewhat with my questions, I did get the explanation that they were worried because:
-when Parker/Heller was filed the supreme court looked like it wouldn't give an individual rights holding. Remember, this was back when O'Conner was on the supreme court and we had 3-2-4 split favoring the liberal 4-none of the guys handling the case had appellate experience and they thought it was going to end up as another Silviera v Lockyer.

The court has since changed for the better and Gura/Levy/Neilly have proven that they are actually quite skilled at this litigation thing. In other words, the reasons for wanting to kill the case with joinder motions or legislative acts are all gone now.

I think that their reasons for wanting to derail the case were fair and I think that their sincerity in not wanting to derail the case now is also real."

Having read Halbrook's excellent book, "That Every Man Be Armed," I am not in a hurry to question his commitment to the 2nd Amendment or his strategic and/or tactical skill at litigation.

Some folks think they know more than folks who have done their homework.

I just let them rant.

You can never convince a know-it-all that he isn't.

I do look forward to the showdown that Parker v. DC (or DC v. Heller?) is turning out to be.

If Halbrook supports it, so do I.