Brady Campaign tried to abort Parker v. DC

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Brady Campaign tried to abort Parker v. DC (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 10/8/2007 1:58:18 PM EDT

Brady Campaign tried to abort Parker v. DC

Posted by David Hardy · 8 October 2007 11:24 AM

Leibowitz's Canticle has revealed that Brady Campaign admits it tried to talk DC into amending its gun law, in order to moot the Parker appeal. (Scroll down on that page, I can't find a way to link to the specific post).

"Helmke, of the Brady Campaign, said the group suggested to Washington that it rework its gun laws rather than press on with an appeal. A broad Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment could jeopardize a variety of laws, including waiting periods for handgun sales and California's machine gun ban, he said."

This bears out what I'd said to some friends a way back -- if you think some of the pro-gun side are worried about the Parker outcome, I'd wager that many of the anti-gun side are absolutely terrified of it! Litigation is always a roll of the dice, the only question is whether you like the odds, and our odds are good. They have far more at risk; right now in court the 2nd amendment is a reality only in DC and in the 5th Circuit (Tex., La, one other state, I think) and about everywhere else for courtroom purposes, the 2nd A. is no protection at all.

They might not even be able to win by winning. A ruling the other way will fire up the gun movement, perhaps resulting in a pro-gun White House, which (given the ages of the Supremes) might mean as many as four new appointments that might eventually rolling things back. From their standpoint, they have everything on the table, bad odds, and a risk of a bad longterm outcome even were they to win.

· Parker v. DC

---------

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

Posted: 10/8/2007 2:02:03 PM EDT

[#1]

The antis are scared for a reason.

I hope this leads the way for repealing or preventing more gun control.

Posted: 10/8/2007 2:02:24 PM EDT

[#2]

Its time to shit or get off the pot.

Posted: 10/8/2007 2:11:17 PM EDT

[#3]

I'm a bit nervous about it. Especially since the SC butchered private property rights when it was on the chopping block not too long ago.

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

Posted: 10/8/2007 2:12:46 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
I'm a bit nervous about it. Especially since the SC butchered private property rights when it was on the chopping block not too long ago.

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

we wont get anywhere without taking chances

Posted: 10/8/2007 2:17:29 PM EDT

[#5]

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.

Posted: 10/8/2007 2:17:54 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'm a bit nervous about it. Especially since the SC butchered private property rights when it was on the chopping block not too long ago.

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

we wont get anywhere without taking chances

For the umpteenth time, Kelo was decided loooong before it was brought to the court. Precedent had been heading in that direction for decades.

Posted: 10/8/2007 2:22:27 PM EDT

[#7]

It'll be interesting..

If not nerve racking....

Posted: 10/8/2007 2:24:40 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Its time to shit or get off the pot.

Fuggin A!

Posted: 10/8/2007 2:25:04 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
It'll be interesting..

If not nerve racking....

It's already proving to be both!

Posted: 10/8/2007 2:32:23 PM EDT

[#10]

Right now the courts do nothing to protect the second amendment anyway, so we have nothing to lose. If the Supreme Court's go for the militia argument, we can still battle every gun control bill in congress and the legislatures - just like we do now.

The gun grabbers, on the other hand, have a lot to lose.

Posted: 10/8/2007 2:39:40 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Right now the courts do nothing to protect the second amendment anyway, so we have nothing to lose. If the Supreme Court's go for the militia argument, we can still battle every gun control bill in congress and the legislatures - just like we do now.

The gun grabbers, on the other hand, have a lot to lose.

To an extent, I agree. They will still use the same tired ass arguments. However, they will have this brand new case to use against us. That could turn out very badly for gun owners.

I do think that we have much more to gain than they do, though. If we win this case, it could not only prevent any future laws, but it could roll back many existing laws. However, certain laws will not be repealed, such as the '34 NFA or the '89 import ban. The '86 MG ban is definitely up for grabs, though. They would still be able to go after mags and ammo, though, assuming that banning them didn't effectively ban a firearm.

While this potential win would help us greatly, it is not the end of the road for gun control. It will merely lead us down a different path.

Posted: 10/8/2007 2:42:11 PM EDT

[#12]

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

Departing the status quo scares people.

Posted: 10/8/2007 2:42:15 PM EDT

[#13]

My prediction:

IF SCOTUS hears the case, they uphold the ruling and DC's gun ban gets amended to allow handguns in homes.

It will then be years (if ever) before any other gun laws are challenged based on the ruling.

Hope I'm wrong but I'm just trying to be real.

Posted: 10/8/2007 3:00:15 PM EDT

[#14]

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.

Posted: 10/8/2007 3:10:20 PM EDT

[#15]

I'm kind of in a "get it over with" mood. Let's have it out before the Supremes and settle
the matter once and for all in a way that makes ALL the states know what's going on and
comply with the highest law of the land. No matter which way it goes.

Though I don't dare to hope that SCOTUS would declare the GCA of '34, the NFA of '65,
the MG ban/FOPA of '86, and 10 USC Section 44 null and void, I'd be very pleased to
hear a clear statement that the 2nd is indeed an INDIVIDUAL's right in all states. This
alone would knock holes in the anti-gun laws of many states.

CJ

Posted: 10/8/2007 3:10:26 PM EDT

[#16]

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 uniformly punts gun-control cases, or decides them on other grounds...

This one will be no different...

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....

Posted: 10/8/2007 3:10:38 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Helmke, of the Brady Campaign, said the group suggested to Washington that it rework its gun laws rather than press on with an appeal.

And yet, as predicted, the city persisted with the case. To an ambitious Mayor who wants to secure a personal legacy, taking one for the team isn't in the game plan.

Posted: 10/8/2007 3:14:00 PM EDT

[#18]

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.

Posted: 10/8/2007 3:18:40 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Right now the courts do nothing to protect the second amendment anyway, so we have nothing to lose. If the Supreme Court's go for the militia argument, we can still battle every gun control bill in congress and the legislatures - just like we do now.

The gun grabbers, on the other hand, have a lot to lose.

To an extent, I agree. They will still use the same tired ass arguments. However, they will have this brand new case to use against us. That could turn out very badly for gun owners.

I do think that we have much more to gain than they do, though. If we win this case, it could not only prevent any future laws, but it could roll back many existing laws. However, certain laws will not be repealed, such as the '34 NFA or the '89 import ban. The '86 MG ban is definitely up for grabs, though. They would still be able to go after mags and ammo, though, assuming that banning them didn't effectively ban a firearm.

While this potential win would help us greatly, it is not the end of the road for gun control. It will merely lead us down a different path.

I can guarantee that if the antis go that route the SCOTUS will pick it up and they will strike it down, as it DOES restrict the usefulness and employment of firearms and is therefore unconstitutional/in violation of their previous ruling.

Posted: 10/8/2007 3:19:58 PM EDT

[#20]

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 uniformly punts gun-control cases, or decides them on other grounds...

This one will be no different...

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....

The precedent definitely suggests you are correct, but I don't think that there has been a case quite like this one. At least not one I can find.

However, the absolute weakness of the DC filing may very well be the court's excuse to punt, yet again.

Posted: 10/8/2007 3:27:45 PM EDT

[#21]

Could it be applied that if the SCOTUS does not hear Parker, then it's de-facto agreeing with the ruling?

Will it still be good for us if this happens?

Posted: 10/8/2007 3:29:01 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Right now the courts do nothing to protect the second amendment anyway, so we have nothing to lose. If the Supreme Court's go for the militia argument, we can still battle every gun control bill in congress and the legislatures - just like we do now.

The gun grabbers, on the other hand, have a lot to lose.

To an extent, I agree. They will still use the same tired ass arguments. However, they will have this brand new case to use against us. That could turn out very badly for gun owners.

I do think that we have much more to gain than they do, though. If we win this case, it could not only prevent any future laws, but it could roll back many existing laws. However, certain laws will not be repealed, such as the '34 NFA or the '89 import ban. The '86 MG ban is definitely up for grabs, though. They would still be able to go after mags and ammo, though, assuming that banning them didn't effectively ban a firearm.

While this potential win would help us greatly, it is not the end of the road for gun control. It will merely lead us down a different path.

I can guarantee that if the antis go that route the SCOTUS will pick it up and they will strike it down, as it DOES restrict the usefulness and employment of firearms and is therefore unconstitutional/in violation of their previous ruling.

I would love to believe that, but unfortunately practical reasoning and legal reasoning do not always parallel each other.

Posted: 10/8/2007 3:29:05 PM EDT

[#23]

If we loose the case then nothing changes. States that are pro-gun will stay that way, as RKBA is still in many state constitutions. We will still fight every GC law that comes up and will still push with pro gun laws.

If we win then besides in DC there will be little change I wager. In DC it will be better than it is now but over all it will be much the same. They will propose more GC laws at federal and state and city level and we will fight them.

We have almost nothing to loose because they are operating on a collective right at this time ANYWAY so if we loose then we loose nothing.

If we win there is a chance to get other laws repealed but I bet that not much happens on this front. This will not change the antis mind or methods and we will still have a fight on our hands.

Posted: 10/8/2007 3:30:25 PM EDT

[#24]

double post due to f'ed up internet...

Posted: 10/8/2007 3:35:45 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Could it be applied that if the SCOTUS does not hear Parker, then it's de-facto agreeing with the ruling?

Will it still be good for us if this happens?

if they deny cert., than the lower courts ruling stands as precedent of the District.

BUT, here's the most important factor, when you are injured (your civil rights) by the federal government, you can either sue them in your federal district court where you reside OR in the District of Columbia since that is where the federal government legally resides.

What that means, is every FEDERAL gun law that someone wants to challenge, can be done so locally, or in DC, under the Parker precedent.

Posted: 10/8/2007 3:37:20 PM EDT

[#26]

You still have to remember ALL semi autos that fire more than 12 shots will still be banned in D.C. even if our side wins.

Posted: 10/8/2007 3:38:45 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
You still have to remember ALL semi autos that fire more than 12 shots will still be banned in D.C. even if our side wins.

Depends on the ruling.

Posted: 10/8/2007 3:39:45 PM EDT

[#28]

Maybe so but even legalizing single shot pistols is a big step up for D.C. residents

Posted: 10/8/2007 3:41:17 PM EDT

[#29]

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.

That's what government does best. Keep everybody complacent by doing nothing.

Posted: 10/8/2007 3:47:47 PM EDT

[#30]

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.

The thing is, they *have* to hear it because there are now more than one district in conflict.

Posted: 10/8/2007 3:50:09 PM EDT

[#31]

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.

The thing is, they *have* to hear it because there are now more than one district in conflict.

It has been that way for a while, hasn't it? The 5th circuit ruled a while back that the RKBA was an individual right.

Posted: 10/8/2007 3:50:53 PM EDT

[#32]

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.

The thing is, they *have* to hear it because there are now more than one district in conflict.

Which ones?

Posted: 10/8/2007 3:51:02 PM EDT

[#33]

And now D.C.

Posted: 10/8/2007 3:52:34 PM EDT

[#34]

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.

The thing is, they *have* to hear it because there are now more than one district in conflict.

It has been that way for a while, hasn't it? The 5th circuit ruled a while back that the RKBA was an individual right.

in dictum

Posted: 10/8/2007 3:56:13 PM EDT

[#35]

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.

The thing is, they *have* to hear it because there are now more than one district in conflict.

It has been that way for a while, hasn't it? The 5th circuit ruled a while back that the RKBA was an individual right.

in dictum

WTF did you just call me?!

dictionary.reference.com/browse/dictum

Posted: 10/8/2007 3:59:34 PM EDT

[#36]

I have never followed a SC case as it happened what kind of time frames are we looking at for things to happen, such as hearings begin, and rulings made??

-Mike

Posted: 10/8/2007 4:01:14 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
I have never followed a SC case as it happened what kind of time frames are we looking at for things to happen, such as hearings begin, and rulings made??

-Mike

Within the same session, which is one year. There could be exceptions if the case is heard late in the session, though.

Posted: 10/8/2007 4:01:37 PM EDT

[#38]

If they are scared then I am optomistic.

Posted: 10/8/2007 4:03:44 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I have never followed a SC case as it happened what kind of time frames are we looking at for things to happen, such as hearings begin, and rulings made??

-Mike

Within the same session, which is one year. There could be exceptions if the case is heard late in the session, though.

does this mean it has to start this session or it has to be decided in the same session in which it begins

-Mike

Posted: 10/8/2007 4:40:42 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I have never followed a SC case as it happened what kind of time frames are we looking at for things to happen, such as hearings begin, and rulings made??

-Mike

Within the same session, which is one year. There could be exceptions if the case is heard late in the session, though.

does this mean it has to start this session or it has to be decided in the same session in which it begins

-Mike

As far as I know, neither. My understanding is that they try to keep cases that are heard within the same session. However, if they decide to hear the case towards the end of the session and they just can't manage to finish it, it could move into the next session. How far could that go on? Who knows. I am fairly confident that it will be done within a year, though.

I am also fairly certain that they can hear the case whenever they desire. This session, next session etc. I am not aware of a rule "expiring" the case.

Posted: 10/8/2007 4:52:07 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
If they are scared then I am optomistic.

Then again, sound judgment has never been one of their strong points...

Posted: 10/8/2007 4:57:58 PM EDT

[#42]

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 uniformly punts gun-control cases, or decides them on other grounds...

This one will be no different...

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....

Well, it's already on the docket so that makes you wrong yet again.

www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-335.htm

Posted: 10/8/2007 4:59:51 PM EDT

[#43]

I hope even further that it will start to end the anti gun movement in total. I'm damn tired of dealing with them being a threat at all.

Posted: 10/8/2007 5:01:47 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

While this potential win would help us greatly, it is not the end of the road for gun control. It will merely lead us down a different path.

Well dammit, what can we do to make it the end of the road for them?!?!

Posted: 10/8/2007 5:03:17 PM EDT

[#45]

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 uniformly punts gun-control cases, or decides them on other grounds...

This one will be no different...

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....

Well, it's already on the docket so that makes you wrong yet again.

www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-335.htm

That doesn't mean they've granted cert yet.

Posted: 10/8/2007 6:10:55 PM EDT

[#46]

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.

Posted: 10/9/2007 2:53:36 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
The antis are scared for a reason.

I hope this leads the way for repealing or preventing more gun control.

I hope it doesn't lead the way for MORE of it!

Yay. Page 3.

Posted: 10/9/2007 3:01:53 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The antis are scared for a reason.

I hope this leads the way for repealing or preventing more gun control.

I hope it doesn't lead the way for MORE of it!

Agreed, Only we as a people can stand up for our rights, We all need to support this fight, I am preaching to the choir, you all already know it...

nobody is going to do it for us.

Posted: 10/9/2007 3:11:21 AM EDT

[#49]

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 uniformly punts gun-control cases, or decides them on other grounds...

This one will be no different...

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....

Well, it's already on the docket so that makes you wrong yet again.

www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-335.htm

That's the appeal for standing by Parker, et al, Heller's case is this docket file: Heller

Note that being on the docket means that they know your case exists. Soon it will be distributed for conference and we should have the response by Thanksgiving, which will say if the SC will hear the case or not. After that, we'll have to wait until the Court hears oral arguements, everybody and his brother sends in briefs and then we should get a ruling in June/July of next year.

Kharn

Posted: 10/9/2007 3:14:21 AM EDT

[#50]

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.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Brady Campaign tried to abort Parker v. DC (Page 1 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us