-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Circuit Court Denies to rehear DC Case
- Thread starter Kelly J
- Start date
TEX1N
Regular Member
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?
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?
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Is there a political strategy she could be playing? Remember, she's a lawyer.
Is there a political strategy she could be playing? Remember, she's a lawyer.
Kelly J
Regular Member
imported post
TEX1N wrote:
TEX1N wrote:
That sounds like the Democratic thing to do.
usmc_recon
Regular Member
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.
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.
rlh2005
Founder's Club Member
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.
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.
hirundo82
Regular Member
ProguninTN
Regular Member
imported post
I presume the District will now weigh whether to try to get cetiorari from SCOTUS.
ProguninTN
I presume the District will now weigh whether to try to get cetiorari from SCOTUS.
ProguninTN
LeagueOf1291
Regular Member
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.
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.
ProguninTN
Regular Member
imported post
LeagueOf1291 wrote:
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
LeagueOf1291 wrote:
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