Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

D.C. Asks Supreme Court to Review Gun Ban Ruling
The Cato Institute ^ | July 16, 2007 | Staff

Posted on 07/16/2007 2:39:15 PM PDT by Turret Gunner A20

D.C. Asks Supreme Court to Review Gun Ban Ruling On July 16, Mayor Adrian Fenty announced that he will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a March decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit striking down on Second Amendment grounds Washington, D.C.'s firearms ban. If the Supreme Court agrees to review this case, Parker v. District of Columbia, it will be the first time the Court has considered the meaning of the Second Amendment in nearly 70 years. "This case is enormously important, not only to the Parker plaintiffs and other D.C. residents, but to persons nationwide who care about the Constitution and the right to bear arms," said plaintiff's co-counsel and Cato scholar Robert Levy.

Read: http://www.cato.org/new/pressrelease.php?id=108

Read: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8169


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; constitution; guncontrol
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last
GUN GRABBER ALERT!!!!!

Keep an eye on this one.

1 posted on 07/16/2007 2:39:18 PM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Turret Gunner A20

So DC decided to appeal, what a shock, the Capital of America is also the worst civil rights violators.


2 posted on 07/16/2007 2:46:14 PM PDT by padre35 (Conservative in Exile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: padre35

Actually, it is of interest. Mayor-for-Life Barry moved to repeal the law, rather than let it go to the USSC - Can you imagine, what Mass. offered him, in frozen cash to do that?


3 posted on 07/16/2007 2:53:01 PM PDT by patton (19yrs ... only 4,981yrs to go ;))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: patton

Another video tape perhaps? Berry skated on Tax Charges, so one hand is washing another...as usual, “joe average” in DC doesn’t have cadres of body guards to protect them, but the Dem Overlords could care less.

firearms are Verbotten!


4 posted on 07/16/2007 2:58:01 PM PDT by padre35 (Conservative in Exile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Turret Gunner A20

If the Supreme Court agrees to review this case, Parker v. District of Columbia, it will be the first time the Court has considered the meaning of the Second Amendment in nearly 70 years. “This case is enormously important, not only to the Parker plaintiffs and other D.C. residents, but to persons nationwide who care about the Constitution and the right to bear arms,” said plaintiff’s co-counsel and Cato scholar Robert Levy.


5 posted on 07/16/2007 2:59:22 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: padre35

A videotape would make sense.


6 posted on 07/16/2007 3:01:10 PM PDT by patton (19yrs ... only 4,981yrs to go ;))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: padre35

They want to have voting representatives in congress but they don’t want to be inconvenienced by that pesky ol’ Constitution.


7 posted on 07/16/2007 3:15:47 PM PDT by beelzepug ("One should never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: beelzepug
They want to have voting representatives in congress but they don’t want to be inconvenienced by that pesky ol’ Constitution.

I live in DC, and I'd like both.

8 posted on 07/16/2007 3:25:30 PM PDT by Apt604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Turret Gunner A20

10 to 1...no, 20 to 1 the Supreme Court ducks the case. A firm decision either way would rip the fabric of the country wide open for generations to come.


9 posted on 07/16/2007 3:31:26 PM PDT by GoldenPup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Apt604

“...I’d like both.”

Then you’re going to have to figure a way to boot the democrats out of your local offices. I’m sure you didn’t vote for the likes of Marion Berry.


10 posted on 07/16/2007 3:38:38 PM PDT by beelzepug ("One should never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Apt604

You live in DC? So what did the ruling effectively do for you guys? Does it mean you can now automatically go buy a gun?


11 posted on 07/16/2007 3:39:06 PM PDT by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GoldenPup
As a longtime (33 years) practitioner in the US Supreme Court, I don't think the odds are as bad as you state. With only a couple exceptions, the Roberts Court has respected the Constitution and obeyed it, with a consistency unseen for 30 years.

On the face of it, the outcome in this case depends on which way Justice Kennedy votes, the positions of the other eight Justices being fairly predictable. But keep in mind that Stevens is 87, and Ginsburg is not in the best condition (as a cancer survivor), and if four Justices agree to take the case, it only takes four, the odds become better.

The case will take about a year to reach the Supreme Court. If there are only eight Justices by then, the vote becomes a tie. And guess what happens when the SC has a tie? The lower court (where we won) is affirmed. And if a Republican wins the next election, the Court may reconsider the case with a new Justice added -- did the same with Alito in this term -- and we get a solid win.

This ain't no slam dunk. But it's a lot better than you surmise.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article, "Enforce Zina's Laws"

12 posted on 07/16/2007 3:42:15 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (Please visit www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: beelzepug
Then you’re going to have to figure a way to boot the democrats out of your local offices. I’m sure you didn’t vote for the likes of Marion Berry.

No, I never voted for Barry, but . . . the right to vote depends on who you vote for? Wow. I'll admit there are some thoughtful arguments against the DC Vote bill, but that's a new one.

13 posted on 07/16/2007 4:24:45 PM PDT by Apt604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Does it mean you can now automatically go buy a gun?

I would think so, although with it still being in the courts, it may be a little premature.

14 posted on 07/16/2007 4:26:55 PM PDT by Apt604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Remember, if the Supreme Court declines to hear it, the decision iof the Appeals Court stands.


15 posted on 07/16/2007 4:36:16 PM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Turret Gunner A20
it will be the first time the Court has considered the meaning of the Second Amendment in nearly 70 years

Hey, at least THIS time someone will appear on behalf of the defense!!
16 posted on 07/16/2007 5:44:46 PM PDT by BorisTheBulletDodger (Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

As a long time (54 years) follower and observer of the SC, I feel that they will be reluctant to tackle directly what is possibly the most contentious long term issue (abortion aside) before the American People today. Notwithstanding your opinions to the contrary, I think the Court will heavily take into consideration the potential future consequences of their decision, no matter what they decide, if they take up this case. Over the recent past, say 50 years, the SC has continually ducked this issue directly, and I feel they will continue to do so for fear of the social repercussions associated with any definate decision involving the 2nd Amendment.


17 posted on 07/16/2007 5:48:35 PM PDT by GoldenPup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Apt604

Well, here’s hoping for you all. Maybe our nation’s capital can start acting like it.


18 posted on 07/16/2007 6:38:12 PM PDT by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: padre35
"So DC decided to appeal, what a shock, the Capital of America is also the worst civil rights violators."

Thank you DC. If the USSC was ever going to visit the issue you can't get a better set of facts for the pro-2nd side than this case. If it has to happen some day right here is the time. My bet is that the NRA has had their fingers crossed for the last month just hoping DC would try to take it up. The case seems to have been meticulously assembled for just that purpose.

19 posted on 07/16/2007 6:43:17 PM PDT by joebuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GoldenPup
GoldenPup said: "A firm decision either way would rip the fabric of the country wide open for generations to come."

The majority of states already protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. The only change I can see if the Supreme Court ends this tyranny would be an energetic push to declare a new holiday celebrating their decision.

20 posted on 07/16/2007 6:46:43 PM PDT by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson