Court takes no action in guns case (Heller)

The Associated Press ^ | 11/13/2007 | The Associated Press

[ctdonath2]

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court took no action Tuesday in the case involving the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.

The justices discussed the case at their private conference on Friday, but reached no resolution.

Four justices must vote to grant an appeal. The court does not always reach a decision the first time it discusses a case.

[ctdonath2]

Umm...OK...

[sourcery]

So in other words, even they don’t know whether or not they’ll accept Cert.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Could mean they’re going to let the appellate court ruling stand. Wouldn’t be a bad thing, since it was an exceptionally well-articulated decision.

[Red Badger]

3 and out......Punt.................

[stylin19a]

would that basically signal to states/cities that they can do what they want ?

[beltfed308]

Crap. Registration required.

Are there anymore details in the article?

This isn't the end of the case as Scotus has been dodging this issue since Miller. If anything the court has painted themselves into a corner imo.

[umgud]

Does this mean they won’t hear it? Or that they’ve just not decided yet? It doesn’t sound as if they stated that they would not hear it.

[ctdonath2]

No. Status quo for them, while DC gets hammered with RKBA cases until SCOTUS can’t avoid the issue anymore.

[Filo]

Could mean they’re going to let the appellate court ruling stand. Wouldn’t be a bad thing, since it was an exceptionally well-articulated decision.

That would be a bad thing. Not that the DC Circuit Court's ruling isn't exceptional, but that it would stand shoulder to shoulder with lesser rulings from lesser courts (the 9th Circuit comes to mind.)

The SCOTUS needs to rule on the case to define who is "right" in the matter.

[ctdonath2]

Nothing more significant at the link than what I posted.

[SmithL]

Could mean they’re going to let the appellate court ruling stand. Wouldn’t be a bad thing, since it was an exceptionally well-articulated decision.

That means that the Appeals Court ruling does stand, but only within that circuit. So for now, DC does not have a gun ban.

[tioga]

-that was my first thought....the case would stand as is.

[irishtenor]

This non-news brought to you by NNN the Non-News Network. Stand by for other breaking non-news as the day progresses.

[ctdonath2]

They haven’t decided. The issue is more complicated that one day’s debate can reach a conclusion on.

The core problem is that DC presented a poorly-worded (as in: maliciously worded) question, Heller responded with presenting a more appropriate question, the issue needs to be addressed - upshot is that they probably want to take the case, but are having trouble figuring out what the actual question is.

[ctdonath2]

Sometimes no news IS news.

[Dead Corpse]

I thought they were up against a timeline here. I’m still shaking my head in wonder at them finding a away to dodge taking this up.

[irishtenor]

Just like poll data is news.

[ctdonath2]

Not quite. The DC Circuit Court’s ruling still holds, but is still suspended until SCOTUS says whether they’re taking the case or not. Yes, DC does still have a gun ban.

[ctdonath2]

SCOTUS can do whatever they want whenever they want.
Timelines for them are just suggestions, not requirements.

[Dead Corpse]

It sounds like the next conference is the Nov 20th. We'll next hear about this on the 26th.

"Just 'damn'..."