Ammo For Sale

« « Legal Question | Home | Priorities » »

Parker to be appealed

In a surprise to no one, DC is appealing Parker:

Attorneys for the D-C government are expected to file an appeal tomorrow against a federal appeals court ruling that overturned the district’s strict ban on guns.

Mayor Adrian Fenty has said the city will appeal the decision. Attorneys plan to petition for the case to be reheard by the full U-S Court of Appeals for the D-C Circuit.

Posted in uncategorized on April 9th, 2007 by SayUncle | RSS 2.0 |

3 Responses to “Parker to be appealed”

  1. Ron W Says:
    April 9th, 2007 at 12:11 pm

    This is another example of how officialdom is aggressively tyrannical.

    The predominant population in D.C. is black, yet not a peep from supposed “civil rights” leaders when their most basic civil right of armed self-defense is denied–just as in the days of slavery. Part of the judicial reasoning behind the U.S. Supreme Court decision of 1857 by which black people were kept in slavery was that if they were declared persons and citizens, then they could also own and carry guns. It’s still the same mentality in D.C. and elsewhere. I must assume that by their silence, “civil rights” leaders at least acquiesce and even support this modern slave mentality..

  2. markm Says:
    April 9th, 2007 at 5:11 pm

    Racist gun laws prevented law-abiding blacks from owning guns for several generations, so effectively that now they don’t understand why they’d want to own guns.

  3. Kevin Baker Says:
    April 9th, 2007 at 11:12 pm

    This is where I expect it to be overturned, then SCOTUS can deny cert. and we’re right back where we started from. I find it highly doubtful that the full Circuit will find an individual right in the Second – Alex Kozinski was absolutely right in his dissent in Silveira:

    Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that “speech, or . . . the press” also means the Internet…and that “persons, houses, papers, and effects” also means public telephone booths….When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases – or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we’re none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.

    It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it’s using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.

    The able judges of the panel majority are usually very sympathetic to individual rights, but they have succumbed to the temptation to pick and choose. Had they brought the same generous approach to the Second Amendment that they routinely bring to the First, Fourth and selected portions of the Fifth, they would have had no trouble finding an individual right to bear arms. Indeed, to conclude otherwise, they had to ignore binding precedent. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), did not hold that the defendants lacked standing to raise a Second Amendment defense, even though the government argued the collective rights theory in its brief. The Supreme Court reached the Second Amendment claim and rejected it on the merits after finding no evidence that Miller’s weapon – a sawed-off shotgun – was reasonably susceptible to militia use. We are bound not only by the outcome of Miller but also by its rationale. If Miller’s claim was dead on arrival because it was raised by a person rather than a state, why would the Court have bothered discussing whether a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for militia use? The panel majority not only ignores Miller’s test; it renders most of the opinion wholly superfluous. As an inferior court, we may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch when it last visited a constitutional provision.

    The majority falls prey to the delusion – popular in some circles – that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll

    I don’t expect these judges to be in any way superior to the majority on the 9th Circuit.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives