Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Circuit Court Denies to rehear DC Case

  1. #1
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    842

    Post imported post

    I find it interesting that Judge Karen Henderson, the single dissenter in the original three judge panel review, did not vote for review!?! I guess she can now say that she voted for the ban right before she voted against it!

    So is the DC Ban still in effect until The Supreme Court get a chance to hear it? Does anyone know how that works?

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Is there a political strategy she could be playing? Remember, she's a lawyer.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    TEX1N wrote:
    I find it interesting that Judge Karen Henderson, the single dissenter in the original three judge panel review, did not vote for review!?! I guess she can now say that she voted for the ban right before she voted against it!

    So is the DC Ban still in effect until The Supreme Court get a chance to hear it? Does anyone know how that works?
    That sounds like the Democratic thing to do.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Columbus Area, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    Didn't the judge who dissented base her ruling on the fact that D.C. isn't a state? I don't think she actually made any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. So we don't know where she stands on that.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Spotsylvania County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    700

    Post imported post

    I heard or read (and cannot corroborate this) that "en banc" hearings are not granted for the "we don't agree with the ruling" appeals. They are only granted in cases where problems with due process, procedural, evidence, the process, etc are suspected. So, under my understanding, the original dissenter's vote against the en banc hearing is not a flip-flop on gun rights.
    ---

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Houston, Texas, USA
    Posts
    180

    Post imported post

    usmc_recon wrote:
    Didn't the judge who dissented base her ruling on the fact that D.C. isn't a state? I don't think she actually made any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. So we don't know where she stands on that.
    No, she took a "collective right" viewof theSecond Amendment andher interpretation that Miller v. US supports that view in her dissent.

    From the text of her dissent on Wikipedia:

    To sum up, there is no dispute that the Constitution, case law and applicable statutes all establish that the District is not a State within the meaning of the Second Amendment. Under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, [/b]the Second Amendment's declaration and guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" relates to the Militia of the States only[/b]. That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    416

    Post imported post

    I presume the District will now weigh whether to try to get cetiorari from SCOTUS.

    ProguninTN

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Buffalo Valley, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    I have simply assumed they would. Whether the S Ct will grant cert is another question. They're more likely to do so if there are contrary holdings in other circuits, in order to resolve a conflict among the circuits. I just don't know if there are contrary holdings on this point.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    36

    Post imported post

    Wouldn't it make more sence for them not to appeal? If they change the law just a little (in wording but not in actual effect) wouldn't it send everything back to square one again?


  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    416

    Post imported post

    LeagueOf1291 wrote:
    I have simply assumed they would. Whether the S Ct will grant cert is another question. They're more likely to do so if there are contrary holdings in other circuits, in order to resolve a conflict among the circuits. I just don't know if there are contrary holdings on this point.

    There are indeed conflicts. The Ninth Circuit took the "collective right" approach in Silveira v. Lockyer. The DC Circuit said "individual right" in Parker v. District of Columbia, as did the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Timothy Joe Emerson. Cert might be possible with the Circuits in conflict, but this is a hot button issue which the court may try to avoid.

    ProguninTN

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •