Why doesn't anyone talk about Parker v. District of Columbia?

In Parker v. District of Columbia, a three-judge panel of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia voted two-to-one to strike down parts of the District's gun control law as unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds. The provisions at issue (1) ban handgun ownership, with exceptions for active and retired law enforcement officials and people who registered their handguns before 1976; (2) prohibit carrying handguns anywhere, including in one's home, without a license; and (3) require all lawfully owned firearms, including long guns, to be stored locked, unloaded, or disassembled.

Click to expand...

On March 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled (in Parker v. District of Columbia) that certain gun control laws imposed by the D.C. City Council are unconstitutional. The laws prohibit the possession of a handgun, and the use of any gun for defense against violent criminals who invade a person's home.

Click to expand...

On March 9, 2007, the appellate court reversed the lower court's opinion, and struck down all three laws challenged by the plaintiffs as violations of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The city and its new Mayor, Adrian Fenty, have asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. We look forward to vindicating the Second Amendment rights of all Americans before the Supreme Court should it decide to hear the case.

Click to expand...

The Court of Appeals, however, ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms--and ruled that at least some parts of the DC gun control law are unconstitutional.[1] The decision acknowledges that the federal courts have given a variety of contradictory statements about the Second Amendment, but points to the historical evidence that it protects an individual right to own firearms—and would seem to force the Supreme Court to resolve the differences between different circuits of the Court of Appeals.

Click to expand...

Dreamer said:

SNIP According to "OLR Research Report",...

Click to expand...

Gunslinger said:

Heller was a security guard, not a "rich white man." McDonald is black. Both cases were about common people wanting their rights no longer trampled on. I believe elements of Parker were incorporated in Heller, but may be wrong. Certiorari was granted in Heller, not Parker. That was why Heller went forward. The SC never was appealed to in Parker and Certiorari was not applied by them to take the case.

Click to expand...

The court's opinion first addressed whether appellants have standing to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in section II (slip op. at 5–12). The court concluded that of the six plaintiffs, only Heller — who applied for a handgun permit but was denied — had standing.

Click to expand...

PT111 said:

SNIP According to this the case you are discussing had six plantiffs including Dick Heller and Shelly Parker.

The reason that Heller went forward:

Click to expand...

Thundar said:

Which means that in DC the Parker precident is still alive, unless later cases by the circuit or SCOTUS disturb it.

Click to expand...

The court's opinion first addressed whether appellants have standing to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in section II (slip op. at 5–12). The court concluded that of the six plaintiffs, only Heller — who applied for a handgun permit but was denied — had standing.

Click to expand...

Shelly Parker – a software designer and former nurse who had been active in trying to rid her neighborhood of drugs. Parker is a single woman whose life had been threatened on numerous occasions by drug dealers who have sometimes tried to break into her house.[8][9]
Tom G. Palmer – a colleague of Robert A. Levy at the Cato Institute and the only plaintiff that Levy knew before the case began.[7] Palmer, who is gay, defended himself with a 9mm handgun in 1982. While walking with a friend in San Jose, California, he was accosted by a gang of about 20 young men who used profane language regarding his sexual orientation and threatened his life. When he produced his gun, the men fled. Palmer believes that the handgun saved his life.[10][11]
Gillian St. Lawrence – a mortgage broker who lives in the Georgetown section of D.C. and who owns several legally registered long guns which she uses for recreation in nearby Chantilly, Virginia. It had taken St. Lawrence two years to complete the registration process. She wanted to be able to use these guns to defend herself in her home and to be able to register a handgun.[12][13]
Tracey Ambeau (now Tracey Hanson) – an employee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Originally from St. Gabriel, Louisiana, she lives in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of D.C. with her husband, Andrew Hanson, who is from Waterloo, Iowa. They live in a high-crime neighborhood near Union Station in D. C. She grew up around guns and wanted one to defend her home.[14][12]
George Lyon – a communications lawyer who had previously contacted the National Rifle Association about filing a lawsuit to challenge the D.C. gun laws. Lyon held D.C. licenses for a shotgun and a rifle, but wanted to have a handgun in his home.[15]
Dick Heller – a licensed special police officer for the District of Columbia. For his job, Heller carried a gun in federal office buildings, but was not allowed to have one in his home.[16] Heller had lived in southeast D.C. near the Kentucky Courts public housing complex since 1970 and had seen the neighborhood "transformed from a child-friendly welfare complex to a drug haven". Heller had also approached the National Rifle Association about a lawsuit to overturn the D.C. gun ban, but the NRA declined.[12]

Click to expand...

PT111 said:

Although all six had valid reasons for having a handgun only Heller had actually been refused. Nothing to do with being black, white, gay or crooked.

Click to expand...