Parker Transcript
Very annotated transcript by K-Romulus who made it to the appellate argument.
Via David.
11 Responses to “Parker Transcript”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
December 8th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
I found it interesting that the court recognizes that half the gun cases in DC are nullified by the jury, especially considering the allegations by people like Patterico that jury nullification is jury misconduct.
December 8th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
Unless you’re going to start punishing juries for picking the wrong answer, though, it’s impossible to stop.
I don’t think the laughter really helped our side’s argument, though.
December 8th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
[…] For those following the case, Say Uncle points to an annotated transcript. […]
December 8th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
Okay, took a harder look at this…
Don’t think they’ll be able to show standing. Unlike enviroweenies or antireligionists, proving injury isn’t easy for us. For example, look at Kropelnicki v. U.S., San Diego County Gun Rights Committee v. Reno, NRA v. Bentsen, NRA v Magaw (both times), Oefinger v. Baker.
Without an actual arrest or statement that the individual planned to commit a felony, he’s up shit creek without a paddle.
December 9th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
standing exists in pre enforcement cases when there is an imminent fear of prosecution. an actual threat is not required. however in the parker case there were several actual threats. alot of talk about that in the briefs.
standing also exists when there is a present harm. here there was a license denial. per k-romulus transcript and looking at the parker briefs, i think it’s obvious where the court was going with it. one of the plaintiffs applied and got denied. that’s the ‘injury.’
they might hold there is no standing, sure, but it looks like that would not be the correct result.
December 9th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
I doubt that standing will be the deciding factor. Of course, if the court decides that the Second Amendment is a meaningless “collective right,” then *no* individual will have standing to assert that right, no matter how badly they are injured.
December 9th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
Dork, look at the case law, where more than once individuals have been turned away from similar (nearly word-for-word) cases for lack of standing.
December 10th, 2006 at 1:36 am
read the parker briefs.
and read the k-romulus transcript.
there is standing here and the court doesn’t think it is even close.
December 10th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
There is standing because the threat to prosecute is more than speculative. They have repeatedly said in court and in public that they will prosecute plaintiffs if they exercise the right to keep or bear arms.
Lack of standing would only be a problem if there was a law on the books but there wasnt a strong showing that anyone intended to prosecute them for violating it. For example, if I tried to overturn a NYC statute against jaywalking, the court would deny me standing because I’m not at risk of being prosecuted for it.
Look at Navegar v US (same circuit) for a great example of the test for standing in gun cases- the manufacturers of the named assault weapons were granted standing….
See gattsaru?
December 10th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
beerslurpy is correct but it goes even beyond that.
in parker the city actually denied a license application. that means they have a current injury, not merely the possibility (actually, certainty) that they would be prosecuted for having unregistered guns. if you look at the transcript k-romulus posted it sure seemed the court was open to this argument.
they can rule however they want. it just doesn’t look like an easy case of ‘no standing’
December 10th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Dork has it right, standing is not the issue – unless and until we lose on the underlying question of whether there is an individual right involved here. If there is, standing is a no-brainer. If there isn’t, standing won’t help them anyway, as they’d have to argue that DC’s rights have been violated, not their own.