DC's petition for rehearing in Parker* has been denied.

[SemiAutoSam]

D

D

 

[wilkinshire]

Babysteps are still steps, and they seem to be going in the right direction.

 

[KMaurer]

The Court probably just did the prudent thing by denying an en banc hearing of the case, since however they ruled, the losing side would almost certainly have appealed to the Supreme Court. Now unless the USSC declines cert (or Brady, et al. decide that discretion is the better part of valor and persuade DC not to appeal) we'll be hearing from the Supremes on just what, if anything, shall not be infringed. Of course any Supreme Court decision could be either broadly or extremely narrowly decided, and as clear as day or as vague, ambiguous, self-contradictory and confusing as Massachusetts gun laws.

Ken

 

[drgrant]

The Court probably just did the prudent thing by denying an en banc hearing of the case, since however they ruled, the losing side would almost certainly have appealed to the Supreme Court. Now unless the USSC declines cert (or Brady, et al. decide that discretion is the better part of valor and persuade DC not to appeal) we'll be hearing from the Supremes on just what, if anything, shall not be infringed. Of course any Supreme Court decision could be either broadly or extremely narrowly decided, and as clear as day or as vague, ambiguous, self-contradictory and confusing as Massachusetts gun laws.

Ken

Course the question of the day is, Ken... what happens
if the supremes do not want to review the case? Does it
then go onto the stage where a "remedy" gets applied,
and then at that point, something tangible happens?


-Mike

 

[RKG]

Course the question of the day is, Ken... what happens
if the supremes do not want to review the case? Does it
then go onto the stage where a "remedy" gets applied,
and then at that point, something tangible happens?


-Mike

If the defendants do not file a timely petition for review, or if a petition is filed and denied, the mandate of the Court of Appeals issues. ("Mandate" is the order that directs relief, while "opinion" is the explanation for the relief granted.) If you go back to the Parker opinion, you'll see that the mandate calls for granting the relief in the plaintiff's complaint, which I've never seen. My guess is that the relief will include, and probably be more or less limited to, enjoining enforcement of so much of the D.C. Code as outlaws the possession of a firearm in the home.

On the other hand, unless and until the Supreme Court takes this case and affirms its result and also affirms the Court of Appeals' rationale, then Parker is law only in in the District of Columbia Circuit. The Courts of Appeals in other Circuits, and the state courts in the states, would not be bound to follow it.

 

[wilkinshire]

But if/when the USSC picks it up and either agrees or disagrees with the lower courts decision, what could happen?
Could this one case change gun laws throughout the country?

 

[Garys]

I think just about anything could happen, depending on what the court decides. Some of the pundits are speculating that if the Court takes up the case and overturns it, then the "collective right" view will be firmly declared as the law of the land. Which would be bad for gun owners. OTOH, they could take up the case and uphold the previous decision which would be a victory for the "individual right" camp.

Or Congress could make the entire issue moot by passing a law overturning the ban in DC only.

Gary

 

[M1911]

But if/when the USSC picks it up and either agrees or disagrees with the lower courts decision, what could happen?
Could this one case change gun laws throughout the country?

If the supremes hear the case, I suspect their ruling would be along the lines of "sensible gun control is ok, but gun banning is not." The devil is in where the "sensible" line is drawn...

I seriously doubt the supremes would say that all gun control is against the law.

 

[Emoto]

Or Congress could make the entire issue moot by passing a law overturning the ban in DC only.

I believe this to be the most likely outcome.

 

[Garys]

The current SGN has an interesting article by Clayton Cramer on this case. It was written before the refusal to re-hear the case came out, but still covers the major issues and some likely outcomes.

Gary