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

« Phila. Daily News | Main | Thoughts on Parker's questions presented »

Cert granted in Parker!!!!!

Posted by David Hardy · 20 November 2007 11:15 AM

Order here.

Court rephrased the question presented as:

"Whether the following provisions, D.C.
Code ยงยง 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the
Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated
with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns
and other firearms for private use in their homes? "

DC had phrased it as:

"Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of
Columbia from banning private possession of handguns
while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns."

Parker/Heller had phrased it as:

" Whether the Second Amendment guarantees law-
abiding, adult individuals a right to keep ordinary,
functional firearms, including handguns, in their
homes."

7-2502 is the registration requirement. 2502.02 is the ban. 22-4504 is the pistol carry permit, which was construed to cover moving of a firearm within the home. 2507.2 is the "functional firearm" ban. Inclusion of the last in the grant is, I think, a good sign for Parker/Heller. They wanted it included, but DC insisted it hadn't filed for cert. on the issue. Well, the Court took care of that.

UPDATE: here's the Brady Campaign press release.

· Parker v. DC

22 Comments | Leave a comment

Rudy DiGiacinto | November 20, 2007 11:23 AM | Reply

Prime and load. Make ready!

Assman | November 20, 2007 11:29 AM | Reply

Looks like they are going to address the issue of long arms in the home but not the issue of standing.

RKM | November 20, 2007 11:32 AM | Reply

The REAL question?

"...of individuals who are not affiliated
with any state-regulated militia,..."

PN NJ | November 20, 2007 11:46 AM | Reply

Any thoughts on the qualifying phrase "keep ... in their homes" (as opposed to, for example, possession in a broader sense)?

Or does SCOTUS wording basically mirror the DC code wording?

RKV | November 20, 2007 1:02 PM | Reply

Dear Lord,
For what we are about to receive, may we be truly thankful.
Amen.

John Hardin | November 20, 2007 1:04 PM | Reply
Whether ... violate the
Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia,

Doesn't the wording of that assume up front that the 2A recognizes an individual right, rather than leave that open as a question to be argued? It seems to me that the SCOTUS has, in the wording of the question, already made this an individual-right victory...
William Newman | November 20, 2007 1:32 PM | Reply

Five exclamation points?????

But interesting times, indeed!

happycynic | November 20, 2007 1:40 PM | Reply

Looks like the Court is narrowing the issue as much as possible with its terminology. I don't know if there is anything to be read into that.

Peter K. Boucher | November 20, 2007 2:25 PM | Reply

Looks like the Court is narrowing the issue as much as possible with its terminology.

I disagree. DC tried to narrow it, but the court is also considering the ban on [non-handgun] functional firearms in the home (2507.2).


Isn't it addressing the issue of standing as well? Wouldn't finding that "individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes" have a Second Amendment right to do so mean that such individuals have standing in federal court whenever such rights are being infringed?

10ksnooker | November 20, 2007 2:35 PM | Reply

Doesn't the Bill of Rights mean what the Bill of Rights means? Isn't it clear from history and the writings of the founders what the Bill of Rights means? Surly it's not another right to choose.

Jim | November 20, 2007 2:36 PM | Reply

I can't help but think "be careful what you wish for." Fingers crossed!

Kevin Baker | November 20, 2007 2:39 PM | Reply

I think the issue of standing remains open. We may hear about it next week, we may not.

Is there any way to determine who voted in favor of granting cert?

Chris | November 20, 2007 2:42 PM | Reply

I'm no lawyer, but when I first read their framing of the question, it gave me a real good feeling.

They use the word "individual". They take into account DC's ban on *all* functioning firearms, not some limited category (handguns). No mention of the "DC is not a state" argument.

They're going at the crux of the issue, and my gut says it'll come down in our favor.

Peter K. Boucher | November 20, 2007 3:13 PM | Reply

CNN wrote this: "The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide whether the District of Columbia's sweeping ban on handgun ownership violates the Constitution's fundamental right to 'keep and bear arms.'"


Reuters wrote much the same.


Are they both careless readers (not noticing that 2507.2 is on the table), or do they think this helps them spin the story in DC's favor? I don't get it.

Peter K. Boucher | November 20, 2007 3:17 PM | Reply

CNN actually was not careless and did get it wrong: "A federal appeals court in March ruled the handgun ban to be unconstitutional as well as a provision that rifles and shotguns -- which are legal to own in the city -- be kept in the home unloaded and fitted with trigger locks or disassembled. The rifle regulations are not at issue before the Supreme Court."

Letalis Maximus, Esq. | November 20, 2007 3:32 PM | Reply

There are two areas of the law about which I know a great deal: 1) the area in which I spend about 80% of my time, and 2) firearms law. The Mainstream Media only very rarely get the story right in either one of them.

Don Gwinn | November 20, 2007 4:45 PM | Reply

I feel like Squeaks looking at a python tail.

NJ Guns | November 20, 2007 5:24 PM | Reply

I think the Court is going to have to be very careful as this could render the District equivalent to a state. The liberals could come right back and say that since teh court treated the District as state like then the district should have full representation in Congress like a state. Like it or not that would be 2 liberal senators and 1 liberal representative. I am sure they'd word any decision carefully, but this has been rolling around in my head since Parker/Heller came up. Could this have been the wrong case to choose for a cert petition? Too many variables? Maybe it should have came out of a state or city ban like New York that wouldn't expose reinterpretation of DC as a political entity.

James Cochrane | November 20, 2007 7:33 PM | Reply

This has no possible impact on the District being regarded as a state. The case was VERY carefully structured to AVOID anything which might give the Courts room to dodge the issue of whether individuals have a right to keep arms under the Second Amendment. They specifically avoid the topic of carrying in public, or appealing a conviction, incorporation, or anything else that might allow another evasion.

John Tate | November 21, 2007 7:08 AM | Reply

18 USC 921 defines Washington DC as a state for weapons issues.

anon | November 21, 2007 8:03 AM | Reply

The "in their homes" is an effort to reduce the implications of the obvious outcome. The SCOTUS doesn't want to immediately fell restrictions on public carry. Gura et all are probably OK with this, as this is the way they have presented the case all along. The goal here is to get a clear decision re-affirming the individual right. Anything/ Everything else grows from that individual right. This decision is the cornerstone. Even after the SCOTUS re-affirms the basic right, there will still be plenty left to keep the NRA busy for decades.

Ian Argent | November 21, 2007 12:40 PM | Reply

Exactly - the restrictions have been added one step at a time, we have to remove one step at a time. That having been said - this case is removing the cornerstone of the restrictions...

Leave a comment