May 8th, 2007 02:05 PM
Appeals court refuses to rehear Parker!
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has turned down the D.C. city government's request for a rehearing in Parker v. District of Columbia. The original decision was made by a three judge panel. The city asked the entire circuit to rehear the case. Since the court has refused, the only remaining avenue of appeal for the city is the Supreme Court.
Last edited by Blackeagle; May 8th, 2007 at 02:16 PM.
Reason: fix link
May 8th, 2007 02:12 PM
SAF Says D.C. Circuit Denial On Re-Hearing of Parker Case Was Right
Refer to a friend
2007-05-08 19:55:30 -
BELLEVUE, Wash., May 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- This morning's decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to deny a petition from the District of Columbia for a hearing of Parker v. District of Columbia before the full court was "right and proper," said Alan M. Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation.
"This is a strong signal that the D.C. Court of Appeals, which is the second most powerful court in the country, feels the original ruling by Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman is solid," Gottlieb
stated. "It is now up to the district to accept the ruling and begin the process of licensing handguns to be kept legally in district residences, or to appeal the case to the Supreme Court."
The Parker case has become the most significant Second Amendment case in the nation's history, because for the first time, a gun control law was struck down on the grounds that it violated the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Judge Silberman's ruling found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms that goes beyond service in a militia.
"The time is long past due for the Supreme Court to hear a case that has such gravity in terms of the Second Amendment and its true meaning," Gottlieb observed. "For almost 70 years, a state of confusion has existed over whether the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right, as we are certain it does, rather than affirming some convoluted 'collective right' of the states to form militias. That interpretation has been carefully fabricated over the years by anti-gun zealots whose ultimate goal is to strip American citizens of their firearms rights.
"We think this question must be answered," he continued, "to forever silence those gun control extremists who have been misinterpreting -- we believe deliberately -- the 1939 U.S. v Miller case in an on-going effort to destroy the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights, and the foundation for liberty in this country. This appears to be the right case, and this is certainly the right time."
The Second Amendment Foundation (http://www.saf.org/
) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
Contact: Alan Gottlieb (425) 454-7012
Source: Second Amendment Foundation
You have to make the shot when fire is smoking, people are screaming, dogs are barking, kids are crying and sirens are coming.
Ego will kill you. Leave it at home.
May 8th, 2007 02:21 PM
Sweet, I think!
If the appeals court won't rehear it, I have to assume that it means they don't find grounds for the appeal.
At least, this way if the case is indeed headed to the Supreme Court, we won't have to wait anxiously and restlessly to find out what the appeals court was going to say. Straight to the Supremes or not at all, in which case I would expect the anti-freedom, anti-self defense firearms laws in D.C. to be struck from enforcement. (Would it mean they were struck from the actual statute book, or not?)
We are going to win this one. We have to; we're in the right.
May 8th, 2007 02:28 PM
well heaven or hell this will come down to the end. Just a bit worried considering the Courts rules the public good meant more tax money by building a walmart on your land. Our right to property has been partially stripped what makes you think that our other ones will not follow suit?
That being said sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness.
Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.
May 8th, 2007 02:35 PM
So if they really screw it up and pass a judgment down that's clearly defective, we revolt. Maybe it's due time for that, too.
May 8th, 2007 02:51 PM
I like that a lot.
Originally Posted by Shadowsbane
I'm gonna go ahead and call this decision a good thing. I think it has a good chance of being heard by SCOTUS, and a better chance of being upheld.
May 8th, 2007 03:08 PM
Okay, is the tide turning, I'm scared to be to hopefull.
I am sure not going to quite pestering my reps, or writing the media.
I've said it before, This could turn into a fight for all the marbles. God I hope we win.
Is there a fingers crossed smiley?
"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand
May 8th, 2007 03:21 PM
Just maybe, they might get it right this time. Steve48
May 8th, 2007 03:22 PM
4my son: Think Good Thoughts
Nothing is gained by refusing, through an excess of caution, to be hopeful.
Try BELIEVING. We KNOW we're RIGHT. Let's have confidence that our side can put forth the winning truth, that we ARE entitled to gun rights, via constitutional protection and via simply our god-given right to protect ourselves.
Loads of historical fact is on our side. Loads of scholars and lawyers know the truth -- to say nothing of millions of American gun owners.
Let's believe in ourselves and in our rightness, and we'll see that we come out on top.
May 8th, 2007 04:06 PM
IF it goes to the Supreme court I think the sooner the better. Whatever you may think of Bush we did get what appears to be 2 good new Justices out of this administration. I don't think we want to wait untill after 08. No telling who we may have in office to pick the next Justice or two.
"Some people go to bed with Lucifer..........then cry, cry, cry when they don't greet the day with God."
May 8th, 2007 07:55 PM
Uhhh....hasn't Bumper posted a thread regarding political action (both peaceful and less than peaceful)?
I'm just a bystander here...not wanting to be caught in a crossfire...and looking to help you out.
May 8th, 2007 08:35 PM
this is very good indeed!
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 04-7041 September Term, 2006
Filed On: May 8, 2007 
Shelly Parker, et al., Appellants
District of Columbia and Adrian Fenty, Mayor of the District of Columbia, Appellees
BEFORE: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Sentelle, Henderson, Randolph, Rogers, Tatel, Garland, Brown, Griffith, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges
O R D E R
Appellees’ petition for rehearing en banc and the response thereto were circulated to the full court, and a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges eligible to participate did not vote in favor of the petition. Upon consideration of the foregoing and appellees’ Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) letter, it is ORDERED that the petition be denied.
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
Michael C. McGrail
"The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century
May 8th, 2007 08:59 PM
All the Lobbyist on the left will be giving favors to the city adm."NOT TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT".
May 8th, 2007 09:25 PM
The Supreme Court does not have to actually hear this case to help us. All it has to do is the same thing the Appeals Court did - refuse to hear it. By refusing to hear it, SCOTUS implicitly says that there is no basis to consider the ruling. It let's the ruling stand thereby indicating that it is a good ruling.
This is one of three possible outcomes of an appeal. Two of the possible outcomes are good and one is bad. The other good outcome would be for the court to hear the appeal and rule in favor of the judgment handed down by the district court. This is in fact the best outcome because it puts into print for all other courts to see the proper understanding of the Second Amendment and informs law making bodies in our country what the limits of their power is.
The third possible outcome is the bad one. If the SCOTUS either reverses the district court or remands it for some reason. Of those two possibilities reversal is the worse outcome. Depending upon the reason for remanding that may not be a problem.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. Albert Einstein
May 9th, 2007 02:43 PM
My only problem with this. Where are DC residents going to buy Handguns? You have to purchase handguns in the state that you are a resident of. So who will they get them from?
“Are you a thermometer or a thermostat, do you reflect or become what is happening in the room or do you change the atmosphere, reset the temperature when you come into the room”?--Chuck Swindoll
Its not about guns...Its about Freedom!
By XD in SC in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
Last Post: December 30th, 2009, 09:53 AM
By Arisin Wind in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: May 2nd, 2008, 11:27 AM
By ber950 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: December 7th, 2007, 07:58 PM
By pogostick in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: July 21st, 2007, 01:25 PM
By Rugerman in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: March 15th, 2007, 10:16 AM
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors