TexasCHLforum.com

I was reading http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/ and noticed that today is the deadline for a response to the cross petition on Parker and wondered if anyone else was waiting on this one? This is the petition to restore standing to all of the original plantiff in the case (the other 5 were denied standing at the lower level).

DC replied and is against the expansion (reinstatement of standing for the other 5) as I thought they would be. I have read a summary already but will be reading the full thing later. Anyone else crazy enough to want to read it can find it here: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content ... -12-07.pdf

Why does it matter? Does more defendants make it easier to win the ultimate prize?

It would expand the options of what SCOTUS could rule on. As it is, the only thing Heller had standing in was the handgun ban. Some of the others had sued for other parts of the ban (long guns need to be unloaded and inoperable). So if the others are granted standing, SCOTUS could rule on different aspects of the ban if it wanted to. I don't think this is as important as the Heller part of it, but I could easily see a ruling that says handguns are legal, but no ruling on the functionality part of it.

So it matters, but not as much as it could. Any lawyers out there understand it differently than I do?

Kalrog wrote:It would expand the options of what SCOTUS could rule on. As it is, the only thing Heller had standing in was the handgun ban. Some of the others had sued for other parts of the ban (long guns need to be unloaded and inoperable). So if the others are granted standing, SCOTUS could rule on different aspects of the ban if it wanted to. I don't think this is as important as the Heller part of it, but I could easily see a ruling that says handguns are legal, but no ruling on the functionality part of it.

So it matters, but not as much as it could. Any lawyers out there understand it differently than I do?

Thanks, I had seen that others who were more knowledgeable than me that it mattered. But your post was the only thing I've seen that explained why.

Liberty wrote:Thanks, I had seen that others who were more knowledgeable than me that it mattered. But your post was the only thing I've seen that explained why.

Then I hope I got it right.

I think there is another reason that expanding the definition of standing is important, at least as I understand the situation. It appears the Circuit courts are not only split on the 2A, but on what constitutes standing.

Some courts require that the plaintiff or petitioner or whatever he's called actually be harmed by the law, not just potentially harmed. Other courts do not require actual harm under the law. The D.C. circuit court falls in the first camp. They ruled that Heller could go forward because he had applied for a handgun permit and was denied, therefore he suffered harm due to the law. For those who wanted a functional firearm, they hadn't been arrested yet, so they were not harmed by the law. Presumably to achieve standing, they would have to make their gun operable, have the DC police find out about it and arrest them (such as after shooting someone who broke into their homes), then appeal on 2A grounds their conviction for violating D.C. law. This is a considerably higher standard than many are willing to meet just to challenge a law!


I believe the Heller/Parker attorneys are arguing that being required to neutralize all firearms and being defenseless is in fact a form of harm, and the others should get standing (and I agree!). Only they are more eloquent, of course.

elb

And we have an update:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content ... -23-07.pdf

This is exactly what I was thinking was going to happen. DC only wants a ruling on the 2A implications and constitutionality of its specific handgun ban. Wow - and all this for something that hasn't even been granted cert yet.

Busy day. Another filing and a response. SCOTUS will consider granting cert to BOTH questions on 9 November with arguments being next year probably (if granted).

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parke ... _reply.pdf

And now we have a preview / review of the case.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategori ... ment-case/

First, Kalrog, you be doing Yeoman's work here keeping up with this one! Thanks!!!

Second, and something I gleened from the article:

That part of the ruling raises these potential issues: First, is the District, as the seat of the national government, not a “free State� of the kind mentioned in the Second Amendment so the Amendment’s guarantee of access to arms for a state “militia� does not even apply; second, is it a state like all of the regular states and thus, because of the 1886 decision in the Presser case, the Amendment does not apply; and, third, is it a unique federal enclave that — like the rest of the federal government — does have to obey the Second Amendment?

Now I have a disagreement with what I feel is a general misinterpretation of the phrase "free State"...

In some writings "state" is not capitalized, and in some it is...

So I have a different interpretation to what "free state" means in this Amendment...And its not one that changes the "individual" or "inalienable" right to keep and bear arms, but one that does bolster it if the English majors and other Historians can bear with my train of thought...

BTW, I have presented this to a legal mind who is certified to present cases before the Supreme Court, and he likes my logic...

A "free state" in my opinion is a personal status, or condition of existance...

We are all considered "free men/women" by our mere citizenship, much more from a moral standpoint...So our right to be in a "free state" is not so much what the Amendment could have been trying to tell us about "the state" (i.e.: government, country, state, lines on a map, etc etc)...

I believe it meant more towards the individual and your right to be in a "free state" of existance is more relavent to the Amendments meaning than a collective body like a government or place on a map...

Most of these other Amendments, if I am not mistaken, don't really bolster the rights of the states as a collective body, but more to the individual rights we have as citizens of this country...

Thats why I can cast out my bias as a pro-RKBA citizen, and as an associate justice of the Supreme Court could easily, and without any hesitation opinion to the individual/inalienable right to keep and bear arms, and rule that the ban in the District of Columbia to be un-Constitutional and call for an immediate reversal of the restriction on its residents...Period!

Let them choose to empower themselves, or not...But I am going to protect the individual, and allow the State to be protected by those individuals as was the original intent of the Amendment!

Not being a lawyer, I do think I would look great in a black robe, and I believe I could spend some time cleaning up some of the nonsense outside individual rights as well...

The only problem...Is I do not play golf! Thats going to probably annoy CJ Roberts and Sam Alito...Not sure if Scalia or Thomas still play...Those others??? Nahhh...Leave 'em be...

stevie_d_64 wrote:The only problem...Is I do not play golf! Thats going to probably annoy CJ Roberts and Sam Alito...Not sure if Scalia or Thomas still play...Those others??? Nahhh...Leave 'em be...

That is a good thing, golf is a waste of grass.

stevie_d_64 wrote:First, Kalrog, you be doing Yeoman's work here keeping up with this one! Thanks!!!

I was starting to wonder if anyone else was interested in this (getting no responses). I'll keep watching then.

Kalrog, I watch this thread closely and read every link that you provide. I love reading SC cases. (Thus, the career as an attorney.) However, there is not much to comment on as this is normal posturing before cert has been granted. Once cert is granted, this case will really get interesting.

Thanks for bulldogging this case.

Kalrog wrote:I was starting to wonder if anyone else was interested in this (getting no responses).

I appreciate your effort. I don't reply because my opinion has no bearing on what the Supreme Court may decide.

- Jim