DC Circuit denies en banc rehearing for Parker case

http://volokh.com/posts/1178641972.shtml ^ | 5/8/07

[Clump]

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.

[Anti-Bubba182]

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

[Clump]

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.

[Redcloak]

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.)

[goldstategop]

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

[Cheburashka]

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.

[Fast Ed97]

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

[zeugma]

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.  

[FreedomPoster]

Yeah, I’m thinking that Venn diagram overlaps.

[kinsman redeemer]

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

[MrB]

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.

[Spktyr]

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.

[ScottfromNJ]

“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.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... 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)

[Cheburashka]

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.

[Joe Brower]

[patton]

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.

[2nd amendment mama]

Here's a press release from the Second Amendment Foundation

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

[patton]

I think that you are exactly correct.

[Ancesthntr]

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.