DC fires its Heller/Parker attorney

Well only one side side showed up in Miller.

This time our side shows up and theirs stays home;>)

I bet Morrison is as happy as can be. Would he really want to be the one up there trying to defend an indefensible position? This has got to be a face saving attempt by all involved on the DC side of the argument. If they get their heads handed to them come the Court's June opinion, Nickles will be able to blame Morrison for giving them such a poor brief to stand on. Morrison on the other hand will be able to say, "If you had only let me present my case, we would have won." Either way, all will try to distance themselves from any responsibility for a loss. And if they win? Well, who honestly thinks they have a chance of winning? This last step could be the closest thing to a white flag the legal community has seen in some time. Any thoughts?

Any thoughts? Well, yes, a few.

First, the explanations postulated by Robert and David are plausible.

Second...we could all make a lot of wind by collectively waving our arms.

But at this point I'd go only so far as it seems probable that Morrison's removal is a result of the post-Singer shakedown. Almost as interesting is the question of why Singer herself resigned.

Can DC use this as an excuse to file for an extension?

The Counsel of Record for the District is Tod Kim, the Solicitor General. The District can't argue that they are without counsel. It is a maxim of the law that one can not invite error and then profit from it. Or to put it another way, you can't kill your parents and then claim mercy because you are now an orphan.

New captain, new game plan, starting kickoff minutes away. Is this news anywhere near as good as it sounds?

Could it be that after digging through the documents of the period, this lawyer couldn't find any support for his claim that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the people?

I don't really know how anyone is going to demonstrate in court that the amendment means anything other than what it says. I know, there's some confusion about the punctuation, and the way the statement was worded, but if you look at other documents by the authors discussing the implications, it's quite clear what they meant.

Who owns the copyright to the brief? The lawyer or the city?

A few facts might be useful. First, Peter Nickels is not a politician; he's a retired partner from Covington & Burling, DC's oldest, most respected law firm. I do not know his appellate advocacy experience, but he's no politician. Second, Linda Singer, DC's former AG, who was sacked by Nickels (who was the Mayor's legal counsel), had no experience in running an office the size of the City's legal department . . . and, by all reports, made a mess of it, with many of its lawyers heading for the exits.

That's the good news. The bad news is that the sacking of Morrison appears to have no benign explanation. What has dribbled out through the cracks is an apparent failure of a "loyalty test" to Nickels -- which is, frankly, silly and proves that Nickels may be a good lawyer but is no politician. A politician knows that everyone has friends, who will yell if their person is injured. Singer had lots of friends in the liberal academic/public interest sector -- and she's a woman. So, they are yelling about Nickels. He should just ignore it and not go on a witch hunt against suspected "leakers."

As for DC's case at the Supreme Court . . . anyone who has read the opinion in the case by DC Circuit Judge Silberman (probably the smartest conservative judge on the DC Circuit) and who has some sense of why the Supreme Court takes cases in the first place knows that DC's law is in trouble. It's extreme, and the case provides a great opportunity for the Supremes to do two important things, that the Court hasn't done in along time re 2nd Amendment: (1) define what it means and who's protected by it and (2) define what, in light of the answer to question #1, is "reasonable" regulation of firearms. Remember, the 1st amendment guarantees free speech, but even that right is not absolute. So don't expect the Court to find that the Second Amendment gives everyone the right to have a working 105 mm howitzer in his backyard.

If the Court is honest to the intent of the 2A, they will find that you DO have a right to have that working 105mm howitzer--you just have to register it.

That is how I see this case playing out: no restrictions on the kind of firearm (or destructive device), but no restrictions either on the state demanding that you register it with them.

The second case coming from this will be to address whether or not a right can be restricted by failing to register something with the state. That's when it will get interesting...

"I don't know quite what to make of it."

Any attempt to read anything more than garden variety cronyism into this development is time wasted... Cronyism and Nepotism are SOP in DC, such is an inevitable result of the [effectively] one party system at work.

I think the Second Amendment means what it says, and does NOT mean what it does NOT say.

It does not say "A militia well-regulated by the government". It says "A well-regulated militia". If someone wants to put "by the government" into the meaning, they have the burden of proof.

It does not say "A militia sponsored and organized by the government". If someone wants to add the "organized by the government" to the meaning, they have the burden of proof.

It does not say "...the right of the militia to keep and bear arms...". It says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms...". If someone wants it to read "militia", then they have the burden of proof.

Whoever tries to prove any or all of those things has a LOT of work ahead of them, and an uphill battle.

If we get a favorable ruling, most gun laws will not go away. We will probably still have NICS, for example. But if the ruling says that it is an individual right, then laws restricting the right have to bear closer scrutiny. Laws have to serve a legitimate public good, and have to be as minimally tailored as possible to obtain that good. We will see 30 years of gradual erosion of the worst gun laws. I think odious laws like requiring a firearm owner's permit will be the next to go, perhaps along with laws setting prohibitively high fees and taxes for gun ownership. I don't think Howitzers will be under our Christmas trees for a long, long time.

In any other industry, Nickel would immediately be snapped up by the opposing team.

Remember, the 1st amendment guarantees free speech, but even that right is not absolute.

It would seem that the only absolute right is that of abortion.

"...Nickel ... snapped up ...

You mean Morrison don't you ?

Yes... Morrison. My bad. Misspelled it to boot.

I would expect that the Supremes would find for individual rights to own weapons that can be used by individuals, i.e. no indirect-fire or crew-served weapons. I have enough trouble keeping 9mm and 7.65 in stock, much less HE and AP 105mm shells.

Turk's scenario "the Supremes would find for individual rights to own weapons that can be used by individuals, i.e. no indirect-fire or crew-served weapons" would be a huge setback for the 2A as we can already own crew served and indirect fire weapons as long as they are registered under the 1934 NFA.

I hope (and expect) the SCOTUS to find that it is unconstitutional to require registration and then refuse to accept new registrations from common citizens as DC has done. (and as was done to NFA items in '86)

Registration is unconstitutional period. You don't need a politician's approval to exercise your rights. The BOR are recognition of God given rights and are limitations placed on government, not on the people. Would you accept any government requiring you to register your Koran(substitute whatever religious book you want) to make sure you're not a terrorist before you could go to the mosque/church/temple or before you could even pray in your home? If you didn't comply you go to jail?

What about if you had to register your computer before you posted on any internet chat room to ensure you're not using the computer to incite violence (you know since all terrorists and criminals register their weapons anyway)? Failure to register your computer means jail time?

This country is headed in that direction because of the career ambition of politicans. They don't care about their responsibility to protect the Constitution or the BOR. All they care about is passing laws because that is what they can put in an election commercial and also how the media measures a politican's productivity. In the past 70 years how many meaningless laws do think have been passed? How many do you think will be passed in the next 70 years? They will never stop.