Ammo For Sale

« « Is a second Civil War in America possible? | Home | That’s unpossible » »

Parker Transcript

Very annotated transcript by K-Romulus who made it to the appellate argument.

Via David.

11 Responses to “Parker Transcript”

  1. Phelps Says:

    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.

  2. gattsuru Says:

    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.

  3. FreedomSight » Blog Archive » Judge in Parker Says … Says:

    […] For those following the case, Say Uncle points to an annotated transcript. […]

  4. gattsuru Says:

    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.

  5. dork Says:

    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.

  6. Xrlq Says:

    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.

  7. gattsuru Says:

    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.

  8. dork Says:

    read the parker briefs.
    and read the k-romulus transcript.

    there is standing here and the court doesn’t think it is even close.

  9. beerslurpy Says:

    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….

    Because it is clear to whom these provisions of the Act would be applied were they to be applied at all, the imminent threat of such prosecutions can be deemed speculative only if it is likely that the government may simply decline to enforce these provisions at all. This argument has generally been found compelling only when litigants seek preenforcement review of antiquated laws of purely “historical curiosity,” claiming that the threat of prosecution under these laws has “chilled” their conduct.

    See gattsaru?

  10. dork Says:

    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’

  11. Xrlq Says:

    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.