Senator "Kay" introduces legislation to lift D.C.

[stevie_d_64]

http://www.senate.gov/~hutchison/prl1017.htm

Once again, be thy careful what thou wisheth for...

The Supreme Court of this land is NOT a lock for us...yet...

[kauboy]

I knew I voted for her for a good reason.


Oh, and to the people from D.C., YOU'RE WELCOME!!!

[O6nop]

http://www.senate.gov/~hutchison/prl1017.htm

Once again, be thy careful what thou wisheth for...

The Supreme Court of this land is NOT a lock for us...yet...

So, if the USSC decides that it's not an individual right, that's a big step backwards!
Here's hoping she knows what she's doing and that she has a good idea it will be seen favorably.

[Mike1951]

Sadly, this may be the most conservative court that we can hope for.

Even if circumstances created another vacancy, the appointee would not be approved while Bush is in office, as the Democrats would drag the process out hoping for a Democrat president in 2009.

And they stand a very good chance in 2008, meaning that future appointments will be liberal leaning to some degree.

I do think they would have as much trouble with an extremely liberal candidate as Bush would have had with a too conservative appointee.

[stevie_d_64]

http://www.senate.gov/~hutchison/prl1017.htm

Once again, be thy careful what thou wisheth for...

The Supreme Court of this land is NOT a lock for us...yet...

So, if the USSC decides that it's not an individual right, that's a big step backwards!

You betcha! Its a giant leap backwards...

Here's hoping she knows what she's doing and that she has a good idea it will be seen favorably.

I know, she does...It may be that the timing good to get the ball rolling now and see how far it goes, or what happens (maybe nothing)...It may not go well if we wait...Keep the issue out of the campaign limelight for '08...

[KBCraig]

I've PM'd Chas. on this, because I know he's busy getting ready for St. Louis. But there are folks who are concerned that KBH's bill could damage the recent Parker v. District of Columbia case.

http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/03 ... alert.html

What's wrong with that? Well if the politicians and the NRA have their way, and this bill is passed, the Court's decision becomes meaningless and moot.

According to the lead lawyer in the DC case, Alan Gura, "If the D.C. gun ban is repealed before the appellate process is completed, Parker will be vacated and dismissed. It will have no precedential value. Whenever the Supreme Court might consider the Second Amendment in the future, it would likely be a criminal's case, not the upstanding plaintiffs in the Parker case who have been harmed by the DC ban."

I'm an NRA member, but I acknowledge they've engaged in political machinations in the past, and that some in the PTB are terrified of SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd.

I don't know that this "alert" is correct, because the case was Parker v. District of Columbia, not Parker v. U.S.. The challenged law is a DC ordinance, not a federal law. While the Congress does have the power to change DC laws, I don't know that this bill would negate the Parker case. So, I await input from Chas.

Kevin

[pistolchamp]

We may all get another chance to vote for Kay as she has expressed interest in running as Vice-President. There could be no better candidate for our cause... gosh I love Texas.

[KBCraig]

Just another take on things, one about which I don't know enough to agree or disagree.

http://www.examiner.com/a-653443%7ERobe ... fate_.html

Robert A. Levy: Should Congress or the courts decide D.C. gun ban’s fate?

Apr 3, 2007 3:00 AM
by Robert A. Levy, The Examiner

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Could the National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress be undermining the best pro-gun case ever likely to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court?

More than four years ago, three attorneys and I filed Parker v. District of Columbia, a Second Amendment case on behalf of six local residents who want to defend themselves in their own homes.

For reasons that remain unclear, we faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation. Happily, the case survived. On March 9, in a blockbuster opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned the city’s gun ban — holding that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.�

Parker is the first federal appellate decision to invalidate a gun control statute on Second Amendment grounds. Federal circuit courts covering 47 states have held that there’s no recourse under the Second Amendment when state and local gun regulations are challenged. That means Parker could be headed to the Supreme Court.

Enter Congress and the NRA. First, Reps. Mike Ross, D-Ark., and Mark Souder, R-Ind., introduced the D.C. Personal Protection Act. Then, on March 28, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, followed suit in the Senate. Both bills, pushed hard by the NRA, would repeal the D.C. gun ban.

Ordinarily, that might be a good thing. But passage of the bills would kill the Parker litigation. It isn’t possible to challenge a law that has been repealed. Yet, Sen. Hutchison claims in her press release that she favors “both a legislative and judicial remedy. I hope the Parker case goes before the Supreme Court and that the court asserts that the right to bear arms is an individual, and not a collective, right. ...�

Incredible.

When asked to clarify the NRA’s position, CEO Wayne LaPierre told us in a private meeting, “You can take it to the bank. The NRA will not do anything to prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing Parker.�

Maybe so, but actions speak louder than words. The NRA’s aggressive promotion of the D.C. Personal Protection Act is baffling at best.

Parker is a much better vehicle to vindicate Second Amendment rights than an act of Congress. First, legislative repeal of the D.C. gun ban will not stop criminal defense attorneys and Public Defenders from citing the Second Amendment when they challenge “felon in possession� charges. Thus, if Parker is derailed, the next Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court could feature a murderer or drug dealer instead of six law-abiding citizens.

Second, a bill aimed at D.C. does only part of the job. It could be repealed by a more liberal Congress. And it will have no effect on state law outside of D.C. In effect, those who support the D.C. Personal Protection Act will be opposing an unambiguous Supreme Court proclamation on the Second Amendment, applicable across the nation.

Third, the Supreme Court is more conservative today than it’s been for some time, and probably more conservative than it’s going to be. In the unlikely event that five current justices decide to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by upholding a total ban on handguns, that would be the time for Congress to act. Until then, the D.C. Personal Protection Act is premature and counter-productive.

Meanwhile, if Congress wants to help, there are positive things it can do. D.C. has no federal firearms licensees. And handguns, unlike rifles and shotguns, can’t be purchased out of state. So even if Parker wins, D.C. residents could not buy a handgun.

Congress should allow interstate handgun sales as long as they comply with the law in both states. And Congress should change how D.C. processes gun registrations. The city requires multiple pictures, fingerprints, and on and on. The process can take months. Congress can mandate that D.C. officials accept the National Instant Check System used everywhere else.

My colleagues and I have drafted alternative legislation — now in the hands of selected senators —that accomplishes those objectives and more, without extinguishing the Parker suit.

Finally, the NRA has suggested that the D.C. Personal Protection Act is “must� legislation. But the D.C. handgun ban was enacted 31 years ago. Why is it only now that legislation must be passed — especially when the effect of that legislation will be to kill the best chance ever for the Supreme Court to affirm that the Second Amendment means what it says?

Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and co-counsel to the plaintiffs in Parker v. District of Columbia.