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

Skip to comments.

DC Circuit denies en banc rehearing for Parker case
http://volokh.com/posts/1178641972.shtml ^ | 5/8/07

Posted on 05/08/2007 10:05:16 AM PDT by ozoneliar

In the Parker case, a 2-1 majority of the D.C. Circuit found that the DC city council's prohibition on handguns, and its ban on using any firearm for lawful self-defense, were violations of the Second Amendment. Today, the full Circuit denied the DC government's petition for a rehearing en banc.

The decision states: "Appellees' petition for rehearing en banc and the response thereto were circulated to the full court, and a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges eligible to participate did not vote in favor of the petition. Upon consideration of the foregoing and appellees' Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) letter, it is ORDERED that the petition be denied."

A footnote to the order states: "Circuit Judges Randolph, Rogers, Tatel, and Garland would grant the petition for rehearing en banc." The following is the list of judges who voted on the petition, with affirmtive votes marked by an asterisk: "Ginsburg (Chief Judge), Sentelle, Henderson, Randolph,* Rogers,* Tatel,* Garland,* Brown, Griffith, and Kavanaugh."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: banglist; bloggerspersonal; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 381-392 next last
To: Anti-Bubba182
SCOTUS. It was 6-4 to not hear it en banc. Note that JRB and Kavanah voted not to rehear it. Way to go W on those appointments. They made all the difference.
41 posted on 05/08/2007 12:11:15 PM PDT by Clump (Your family may not be safe, but at least their library records will be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Clump

Thanks I hope the case gets there soon and is ruled on before the election.


42 posted on 05/08/2007 12:15:56 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
I would rather SCOTUS not hear the case than for it to take it and reverse it 5-4. On the other hand, if we are going to win, then it will a great victory, as all inferior courts will have to follow it. Of course it all depends on the language of the opinion.

My guess is that the most we can hope for is that the opinion is affirmed, and that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated into the 14th.

I don't think it will be a basis for us to go getting every state and local gun law thrown out the window. If it is indeed a fundamental right, then my guess is that the court will adopt some sort of intermediate scrutiny for challenging gun laws. Strict scrutiny would be my choice, just as it is the standard for the government's ability to curtail other established individual rights.

If I am right then many of the more draconian laws like in Chicago and NYC will be subject to serious review. But things like prohibitions on carrying will probably still be left to the states, at least for now. If JRB replaces a liberal in the next year then who knows, we may get some real meaningful precedent that will open the door to challenging a lot of restrictions.

43 posted on 05/08/2007 12:22:27 PM PDT by Clump (Your family may not be safe, but at least their library records will be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Clump
Those voting to hear it were either Clinton appointees or GHWB appointees. It's interesting that Judge Henderson didn't vote for another bite at the apple. (She was the lone dissenter on the three judge panel.)
44 posted on 05/08/2007 12:25:27 PM PDT by Redcloak (The 2nd Amendment isn't about sporting goods.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ozoneliar
The city will probably appeal to the Supreme Court but their own attorney will tell them if they can't get an en banc hearing, odds are good the SCOTUS will probably uphold Parker. Its a bad day for DC Democrat Thug Adrian Fenty and a good day for DC's law-abiding residents.

"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

45 posted on 05/08/2007 12:37:13 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr
I’m almost willing to bet that the Supremes won’t even comment on this, as nobody there seems to want to touch this.

The losing party has to appeal. If they don’t it all ends right here.

If D.C. appeals the Supreme Court may decide to hear the appeal or not. If they refuse to hear the appeal the lower court ruling stands.

If they agree to hear the appeal, that’s when things get interesting.

46 posted on 05/08/2007 12:41:48 PM PDT by Cheburashka (Do you know what they do to puppets in prison?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ozoneliar

Ginsburg should have been on the Supreme Court...Its a shame he pulled out and we ended up with Kennedy.


47 posted on 05/08/2007 12:44:05 PM PDT by Fast Ed97
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hazcat
I need a better source than a web blog that doesn’t list their source.

Me too.

I've looked at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals website, but haven't found anything.  

48 posted on 05/08/2007 12:45:13 PM PDT by zeugma (MS Vista has detected your mouse has moved, Cancel or Allow?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

Yeah, I’m thinking that Venn diagram overlaps.


49 posted on 05/08/2007 12:59:53 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ozoneliar

They did this - because it’s right to do so.


50 posted on 05/08/2007 1:07:57 PM PDT by kinsman redeemer (The real enemy seeks to devour what is good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud

Think about this, everyone -

all those folks in jail for simply possessing a firearm in DC will be freed and pardoned because

any law that is deemed unconstitutional is not considered to have ever BEEN a law. Anyone being punished for violating a “non-existant” law will be freed.


51 posted on 05/08/2007 1:11:47 PM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka

DC may just decide to cut their losses and write a new law that’s about as restrictive, which will then cause the whole cycle to start all over.

This tactic would try to make the problem go away by running the good guys out of money.


52 posted on 05/08/2007 1:14:09 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

“Kennedy seems the most likely to side with Ginsburg et al. and vote to reverse, whereas Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will probably vote to affirm.”

Not withstanding the argument that Kennedy has often dissapointed conservatives, as a Reagan appointee I doubt Kennedy would want his legacy to be one that was the swing vote against individual gun rights in a critical second amendment ruling by the SCOTUS, a critical ruling that would set national precedence regarding individual gun rights. I predict he would side with the four conservatives, with the possiblility of even Breyer being on board. Supposedly Breyer’s former Harvard Law School colleague Lawrence Tribe, a liberal constitutional law expert, has even admitted that the 2nd amendment protects an individuals right to bear arms.

If SCOTUS takes the case, I see a 5-4 or perhaps even a 6-3 ruling upholding the circuit courts decision affirming the individuals right to bear arms.


53 posted on 05/08/2007 1:26:50 PM PDT by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: umgud
"... If SCOTUS does hear this case and rule in our favor, the next this we’ll see is a whole bunch of cases whre someone then has to decide what “infringement” means."

In archaic 18th-Century custom of language, 'infringment' meant the impropriety of laying one's flintlock pistol down upon a linen doily next to the silver tea service.

The Founders never intended that no gun laws could come into being, no no, quite on the contrary. Rather, they were chiefly concerned with firearms as they relate to dignified protocol at afternoon tea.

(/Brady Campaign)

54 posted on 05/08/2007 1:33:44 PM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

Now that the case has the publicity I expect the money will be there. And the English language has only so many variations in it - soon you run out of different ways of saying the same thing.


55 posted on 05/08/2007 1:43:39 PM PDT by Cheburashka (Do you know what they do to puppets in prison?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; wku man; SLB; ...
Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!
56 posted on 05/08/2007 1:48:18 PM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Not really - the Parker ruling struck down the law that made it illegal to posses a functional firearm in your home, and the law that required a permit for a firarm, in your home.

So, only those folks aressted for possession of a functional firearm in their home, without a permit, will be free - not pardoned. You can’t pardon someone for a crime that didn’t exist.

Having said all that, the number of persons arrested for this, and no other crime, is probably pretty small.


57 posted on 05/08/2007 1:51:25 PM PDT by patton (19yrs ... only 4,981yrs to go ;))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: zeugma; Hazcat
Here's a press release from the Second Amendment Foundation

SAF SAYS D.C. CIRCUIT DENIAL ON RE-HEARING OF PARKER CASE WAS RIGHT

58 posted on 05/08/2007 1:52:01 PM PDT by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org ? Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

I think that you are exactly correct.


59 posted on 05/08/2007 1:54:38 PM PDT by patton (19yrs ... only 4,981yrs to go ;))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer

Someone responded to your post by stating: “Two out of twelve courts. And there have probably been 40 cases — two of the 40 have been ruled an individual right.”

At one time the general consensus was that the Earth was flat. There was also a consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth.


60 posted on 05/08/2007 2:01:49 PM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 381-392 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