Brady Campaign tried to abort Parker v. DC - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Brady Campaign tried to abort Parker v. DC (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 10/9/2007 3:20:13 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'm hopeful but I think the decision could go either way.

Frankly I don't think the decision will go either way...at least not to an extent that it effects standing laws across the nation. I predict that they will craft a decision that is ambiguous enough to allow the status quo to be maintained. It's rare that they issue a ruling that fundamentally reverses existing law, especially counter to the "leaders" of the law enforcement community.

Yup.

Posted: 10/9/2007 3:24:05 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
It cannot bring more gun control because overturning it would simpy keep things at the status quo. As would refusing to grant cert.

Upholding it would be different, however the wording of the decision could be critical. The District of Columbia is not a state. Even a strict constructionalist decision would not automatically aply to the states due to the 10th Amendment. Someone would have to sue one of the Sates on the same matter, have it go to the Supreme Court and then they would have to decide if the 14th Amendment applied to it.

Refusing to grant Cert would let everyone sue in DC for the '86 MG ban to be overturned, as Parker would be the law of the land in the DC Circuit. It just wouldnt apply to all of the other Circuits, but that doesnt matter since (as previously mentioned) anyone can sue the FedGov in DC. Not applying in the other circuits doesnt matter as much since the Supremes wont touch the incorporation (if 2A applies to the states as well, or only the feds) issue until a seperate case comes up.

Parker was/is a genius plan to force the Courts to rule on 2A, and the Circuit Court did exactly that. Since there's no recent SC precident, they cant kick it back to the Circuit Court to have it rewritten in light of another case (as happened with Stewart, they were told to look at Raich as it was a very similar issue). If the SC wants to overturn it, they'll have to explain themselves in great detail.

Kharn

Posted: 10/9/2007 3:28:09 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'm hopeful but I think the decision could go either way.

Frankly I don't think the decision will go either way...at least not to an extent that it effects standing laws across the nation. I predict that they will craft a decision that is ambiguous enough to allow the status quo to be maintained. It's rare that they issue a ruling that fundamentally reverses existing law, especially counter to the "leaders" of the law enforcement community.

Yup.

The previous court already did reverse existing law. There is no way they can really make a decison that some LE members are not going to like. The best thing they can do for the anti-gun groups is NOT hear the case- if they are going to be honest.

Of course if they plan on fabricated an totally non-sensical decision, like Cruckshank or Dredd Scott then they can accept it.

Posted: 10/9/2007 3:33:02 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

So now both the NRA and the Brady Campaign have tried blocking this suit.

Departing the status quo scares people.

aaand puts people out of their jobs...

Posted: 10/9/2007 3:35:09 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Folks in DC will get their rights back (as a 'punt' (eg denial of cert, in tech terms) leaves the next lower court's ruling intact), and nothing else will change....

No, because then the case law from the District Court can be used against the government in other cases and we either win those cases or then end up back at the Supreme Court with the same question they avoided in the first place.

Posted: 10/9/2007 3:35:15 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
It cannot bring more gun control because overturning it would simpy keep things at the status quo. As would refusing to grant cert.

Upholding it would be different, however the wording of the decision could be critical. The District of Columbia is not a state. Even a strict constructionalist decision would not automatically aply to the states due to the 10th Amendment. Someone would have to sue one of the Sates on the same matter, have it go to the Supreme Court and then they would have to decide if the 14th Amendment applied to it.

Refusing to grant Cert would let everyone sue in DC for the '86 MG ban to be overturned, as Parker would be the law of the land in the DC Circuit. It just wouldnt apply to all of the other Circuits, but that doesnt matter since (as previously mentioned) anyone can sue the FedGov in DC. Not applying in the other circuits doesnt matter as much since the Supremes wont touch the incorporation (if 2A applies to the states as well, or only the feds) issue until a seperate case comes up.

Parker was/is a genius plan to force the Courts to rule on 2A, and the Circuit Court did exactly that. Since there's no recent SC precident, they cant kick it back to the Circuit Court to have it rewritten in light of another case (as happened with Stewart, they were told to look at Raich as it was a very similar issue). If the SC wants to overturn it, they'll have to explain themselves in great detail.

Kharn

You would have to find someone who lived in DC who was damaged by the 1986 MG ban. Is there such a person?

The danger to us is that some might see this as so counter to their ideology and politics that there will be a ideologically and politically derived answer that they will then turn around and TRY to wrap law around. Its a slim chance but there is historical precident for the Court failing in this regard- the last time was when they ruled on the internment of American Citizens of Japanese decent in World War II. Crukshank and Dredd Scott were two earlier famous instances where the Court ignored the law and sided with the Mob, or at least the mob of a large chunk of the nation.

Posted: 10/9/2007 3:35:43 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
I'am starting to think the SCOTUS will not even take the case.
D.C.'s petition is so lame it dose not raise a constitutional question. It ask's the court to uphold their ban without reguard to the constitution.
I may be wrong but I think the SCOTUS only hears cases where there is a constitutional question.

SCOTUS has been asking to hear a 2A case for years. Long over due. The NRA has been derailing every court case to avoid SCOTUS until the 'perfect' case came along. If I recall, The NRA didn't want any part of the Parker case in the beginning.

The problem in the past with the 2A cases was that they were all criminal in nature. Someone commited a crime and then challenged their sentence on Constitutional grounds. The Parker case (which is no longer Parker) is not a criminal case, it's lawsuit. Thus much better suited for challenge in front of SCOTUS.

Posted: 10/9/2007 3:40:53 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

You would have to find someone who lived in DC who was damaged by the 1986 MG ban. Is there such a person?

denial of rights is enough for Article III standing, we wouldn't actually need someone to be caught with an MG, just someone make an attempt to get one and be denied.

Posted: 10/9/2007 3:47:50 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'am starting to think the SCOTUS will not even take the case.
D.C.'s petition is so lame it dose not raise a constitutional question. It ask's the court to uphold their ban without reguard to the constitution.
I may be wrong but I think the SCOTUS only hears cases where there is a constitutional question.

SCOTUS has been asking to hear a 2A case for years. Long over due. The NRA has been derailing every court case to avoid SCOTUS until the 'perfect' case came along. If I recall, The NRA didn't want any part of the Parker case in the beginning.

The problem in the past with the 2A cases was that they were all criminal in nature. Someone commited a crime and then challenged their sentence on Constitutional grounds. The Parker case (which is no longer Parker) is not a criminal case, it's lawsuit. Thus much better suited for challenge in front of SCOTUS.

umm didn't they throw out a case a couple years ago?

i thought is was S.O.P. for them to avoid 2nd Amendment cases.

Posted: 10/9/2007 3:53:45 AM EDT

[#10]

Parker will most likely be left as is or confirmed with the narrowist possible latatude.

Either way though it is a serious crack.

I hope it is decided before the 08 presidential election because it will go a long way to making a Clinton or Obama presidency irrelevant from a gun control perspective.

Posted: 10/9/2007 4:16:15 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

So now both the NRA and the Brady Campaign have tried blocking this suit.

Departing the status quo scares people.

ain't that the truth.

I'd say 'strange bedfellows' but hte NRA and Brady aren't so far apart on most issues.

Posted: 10/9/2007 4:17:19 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

I hope it is decided before the 08 presidential election because it will go a long way to making a Clinton or Obama presidency irrelevant from a gun control perspective.

That may actually be a relief to the democrats as they can have a good reason not to pursue further gun control. It would completely take the issue off the table and prevent it from becoming a hot potato.

Posted: 10/9/2007 4:47:26 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Refusing to grant Cert would let everyone sue in DC for the '86 MG ban to be overturned, as Parker would be the law of the land in the DC Circuit. It just wouldnt apply to all of the other Circuits, but that doesnt matter since (as previously mentioned) anyone can sue the FedGov in DC. Not applying in the other circuits doesnt matter as much since the Supremes wont touch the incorporation (if 2A applies to the states as well, or only the feds) issue until a seperate case comes up.

You would have to find someone who lived in DC who was damaged by the 1986 MG ban. Is there such a person?

See the red portion. Anyone damaged by the FedGov can sue in the DC Circuit, even if you live in Alaska or Virginia.

Kharn

Posted: 10/9/2007 4:56:33 AM EDT

[#14]

Even for DC a win won't matter. The District will simply require anyone who wants to own a hand gun to get a permit & then they will never issue any permits.

Posted: 10/9/2007 5:45:09 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I hope it is decided before the 08 presidential election because it will go a long way to making a Clinton or Obama presidency irrelevant from a gun control perspective.

That may actually be a relief to the democrats as they can have a good reason not to pursue further gun control. It would completely take the issue off the table and prevent it from becoming a hot potato.

That is pretty much my take on it. It gives them an escape route from the far left on the issue.

Posted: 10/9/2007 5:45:49 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Even for DC a win won't matter. The District will simply require anyone who wants to own a hand gun to get a permit & then they will never issue any permits.

That would still be considered a ban and won't fly.

Posted: 10/9/2007 5:54:58 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
I'm only 23, and I'm sick and tired of it being ambiguous. The .gov either needs to respect our rights, or stand up like men and try to take them away. Enough.

+1

Posted: 10/9/2007 5:59:12 AM EDT

[#18]

Humor my ignorance, but as I understand, Parker v. DC
would essentially attempt to answer the question as to whether the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL right, or a right reserved by the STATES.

Obviously, we want it to be an INDIVIDUAL right.
However, if the SC rules that it is a states right, would that not negate the effect of FEDERAL gun control laws?

Individual States would all then be able to control the issue on their own terms and in
reference to their own Constitutions.

I'm just asking, I'm really ignorant of legal shit.

Posted: 10/9/2007 6:01:58 AM EDT

[#19]

This SCOTUS has ruled against free speech (Campaign Finance Reform), individual property rights, and protection against unreasonable search and seizure. What makes anyone think they will support the 2nd?

Posted: 10/9/2007 6:06:08 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Humor my ignorance, but as I understand, Parker v. DC
would essentially attempt to answer the question as to whether the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL right, or a right reserved by the STATES.

Obviously, we want it to be an INDIVIDUAL right.
However, if the SC rules that it is a states right, would that not negate the effect of FEDERAL gun control laws?

Individual States would all then be able to control the issue on their own terms and in
reference to their own Constitutions.

I'm just asking, I'm really ignorant of legal shit.

No, DC isn't a state. So its wether its a individual right or a right reserved by the state, as in the goverment, no plural.

Anything decided here would have no immediate bearing on the 50 States, only the Federal goverment but if there is a court precident saying the 2nd is a individual right that had to be respected than the 14th Amendment could be brought to play. But each state would have to be sued by someone one state at a time, unless they threw in the towel and changed their laws ahead of time to avoid such suits.

Posted: 10/9/2007 6:07:40 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
This SCOTUS has ruled against free speech (Campaign Finance Reform), individual property rights, and protection against unreasonable search and seizure. What makes anyone think they will support the 2nd?

Because they have not ruled against free speech, individual property rights or protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

Posted: 10/9/2007 6:21:27 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
For civil rights cases, doesn't the federal government pay the attorneys' fees?
If so, couldn't every gun law be challenged and the court costs reimbursed. I read somewhere that the ACLU was almost fully funded by legal fees recouped from the federal government.

To get civil rights attorneys fees (under 28 USC 1988) you have to file a claim under 28 USC 1983 or 28 USC 1985.

They haven't filed a claim under either of those acts, so no, they can't get the fees.

If they filed a claim where the United States was a party, they could conceivably get fees under 28 USC 2412.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Brady Campaign tried to abort Parker v. DC (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us