That sounds like the Democratic thing to do.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?
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.
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.
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.