Posted on 03/24/2007 9:25:49 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
Attempts by "well-meaning members of Congress" to repeal the 1976 Washington, D.C., gun ban could backfire by keeping the case out of the U.S. Supreme Court, said attorneys representing six D.C. residents in a high-profile Second Amendment case.
"We appreciate that the Second Amendment's many friends in Congress want to express themselves on the D.C. gun ban, and there are ways in which Congress can have a tremendously positive impact," said Alan Gura, lead counsel in Parker v. District of Columbia, which challenged the 1976 D.C. gun ban.
But "Congress has to act very carefully," Gura told Cybercast News Service after a panel discussion of the case.
"A congressional repeal of the D.C. gun ban right now could erase the recent court victory," he said, referring to the March 9 ruling by U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that said the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.
"All of our hard work would be wasted," Gura warned.
"We have to work with the members of Congress to make sure that if they want to express themselves legislatively on the D.C. gun ban, they can do so in a way that preserves the issue for litigation, Gura said.
Second Amendment supporters have waited many years for the right case to bring before the U.S. Supreme Court. Their goal is for the highest court in the land to interpret the Second Amendment in a way that reinforces the constitutional right of individuals to own guns.
Gura said Congress can "implement the Parker decision without killing it" by allowing interstate handgun sales and forcing the District to accept normal instant background checks.
Robert Levy, co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the case, noted that Parker v. District of Columbia "considered the question that has divided Second Amendment scholars for decades: Does the right to keep and bear arms belong to us as individuals or does the Constitution merely recognize the collective right of the states to arm their militias?"
Levy, who is also senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, stated that the "D.C. government has been totally ineffective at disarming violent criminals, but at the same time, the government has done a superb job of disarming decent and peaceful residents."
Noting that he and Gura represent "six plaintiffs who live in the District, pay their taxes in the District and obey the laws in the District," Levy stated that "D.C. says if somebody breaks into their house, their only way to obtain remedy is to call 911 and hope that the police arrive on time."
"That's not a good enough remedy," he added. "The right to keep and bear arms includes, of course, the right to defend your property and your family, and most of all, your life.
"There have been more than three dozen challenges to the D.C. ban," Levy said, but "mostly, they've been filed by criminals who are serving longer sentences for gun possession."
Gura agreed that "the history of Second Amendment litigation brought by criminals is very poor compared to what we have achieved. The question is not whether the Supreme Court will decide the issue, but whether it will do so with our case -- or the next common criminal who's presenting the Second Amendment in an unfavorable light."
"It's sad, I think, for us to have a basic, fundamental right defined within the lens and context of a criminal proceeding," Gura added.
'The Constitution is on our side'
As Cybercast News Service previously reported, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's decision on Friday, March 9. Senior Judge Laurence Silberman and Judge Thomas Griffith stated in their opinion: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms."
"We could not have asked for a more unequivocal and explicit statement," Levy declared. "The Constitution is on our side."
Looking to the future, Gura said he expects the District of Columbia to ask for review of the case by the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. "We're not super concerned about this being overturned by the full court, and of course, we're fairly confident and hopeful that the Supreme Court can read the Constitution as well," he noted.
Levy added that those involved in the case "want the problem to be solved nationwide," another reason they are against Congress repealing the gun ban in the nation's capital. "That would do nothing outside of Washington, D.C.," he said.
Gura noted that he and Levy "have been spending a lot of time on the Hill meeting with people" about the need for careful action by Congress, "and we think the message is getting through."
Gura said that he and Levy met on Thursday with leaders from the National Rifle Association, "which had been pushing this legislation" to eliminate the D.C. gun ban, but "we believe that they've seen the light. They've given us their assurances that they are not interested in ruining the case."
"And [NRA President] Wayne LaPierre told us we can take that to the bank," Gura said.
However, "the anti-gun people are a different story," he stated. "We have gotten word that at least one group is now trying to push for a legislative appeal because, frankly, they don't want this in the Supreme Court, and the reason they don't want this in the Supreme Court is because they're going to lose."
But the optimism expressed by Gura and Levy on Thursday apparently didn't extend to Capitol Hill, where Democrats sidelined a bill that would have granted the District of Columbia voting rights in the House of Representatives because it contained a measure repealing the D.C. gun ban.
Instead of moving ahead, Democrats indefinitely postponed a vote on the entire package. Supporters of D.C. voting rights accused Republicans of injecting a poison pill (the D.C. gun ban) into the legislation.
Levy had some advice for Americans who believe that an outright gun ban is necessary for public safety. "The way to go about that is to change the Constitution. We cannot simply ignore the Constitutional provision and act as though the document does not exist.
"As a nation, we have chosen to have a written Constitution, and it has served us well for more than two centuries," he added.
"we're from the government and we're here to help"
No right to self-defense or vote. Got to love those Dems. Once again, see the tagline.
in the case of D.C., the 10th Amendment might not apply, but the "right of the people" sure does.
Damn. I completely missed this - I submitted a six-page Enemy Course of Action Analysis yesterday, trying to predict DC's next step. Of course, I recognized that their would be enormous pressure on DC to keep this out of the USSC, as the effect would be nationwide - but it never even occured to me that Congress might repeal the law, to kill the case.
(Whacks self in head).
The Laura Ingraham Show had an audio interview on Friday with the guy who brought and won the case...Does anyone have that audio?
IF we're going to have to remove the traitors from Congress, we might as well get it done. It has become a personal attack on our freedom, and I promise you they will never get my guns. I have strong feelings about anyone who tries to do that.
"And [NRA President] Wayne LaPierre told us we can take that to the bank," Gura said.
Thank you NRA. Some Freepers were saying the NRA was working in keeping the ban. According to this, it sounds like the NRA was worried about bringing this to the Supreme Court where we could lose. If we could rid the District of the ban through the legislature, why risk everything by going to the USSC?
The Parker lawyers think we're going to win this thing. Finally.
Because, right now, the finding only applies to DC. If the keep it out of the USSC, it will just affect DC gun law - and to heck with the rest of us.
See, they would rather DC gun law gets trashed, than ALL THE DANG GUN LAWS IN THE COUNTRY do.
Which is why Mayor-for-life Barry moved to repeal the law.
They didn't attach it to the bill to kill the case. They attached it to the bill because they knew the demorats would never take the measure up for a vote.
Barry made a motion to repeal it, from the DC side.
(Wonder how much the Brady campaign paid him to do that?)
The pressure on DC not to let this get in front of the USSC must be huge.
The gun grabbers seem to be in damage control mode - two little laws, in DC, got struck down, where everybody is armed, anyway.
Much better than that the USSC rules 2A protects individuals, in their thinking.
I was wondering if I would post to you my questions about this.
I can understand the NRA was nervous about this. It has a lawyer who doesn't own a gun pushing this. I suppose in the NRA's thinking, the lawyer could have taken this to the Appeals court with the intention of losing. It would have been a victory for the anti's.
Does this actually affect all gun laws if we win before the Supreme Court or will the anti's expect a ruling on the 20,000 gun laws on the books. I can see an anti saying, "yeah, you have a right against an outright ban but not ridiculous taxation". They don't understand 27 words so why would they understand a 27 page decision?
Watch your back Mr. Gura. The NRA will find a way to f*** this up.
L
If it goes before the USSC, it will immediately effect SOME of the 21,000 gun laws, but not all of them - depends on how they decide (might be against us), and how they word it.
As to the NRA, I will give a link to their conduct in this - it is less than stellar. Let me go find it.
Don't bother. I think I read that. It was from a website called "The Agitor" who first reported it. The Parker lawyers weren't happy with the NRA but there were no particulars why they were unhappy.
I'm sure the NRA wasn't too happy with the conduct of the Parker lawyers but you can't argue with success.
That website IS the Parker lawyers post, not the Agitator.
It is the actual lawyer who won, describing his interactions with the NRA.
Now, you may discount it - I don't have a dog in this fight - but it is kind of hard to say, he wasn't there, wouldn't know.
Get it?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Thanks for the link.
It's too bad we have to worry Justices on the Supreme Court are unable to read 27 words.
I was typing at the same time you were.
Yes, thanks for the link. In support of the NRA, it could have gone the other way and the NRA would have looked on in a more favorable light. I can't fault them for taking another method which would have had the same result but not involve a Second Amemdment ruling.
Maybe it is time for a ruling. We may not have numbers in our favor like this for a long time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.