Comments on: Court Affirms District’s Gun Ban Is Unconstitutional

By: James Young

James Young — Thu, 10 May 2007 13:13:37 +0000

I have a sneaking suspicion that, WaPo entreaties and politicians’ bluster to the contrary notwithstanding, the District will not file a petition for a writ of certiorari. If it fails to do so, the D.C. Circuit’s petition is the law only in the District, and is nothing more than persuasive authority for any other Circuit.

It’s a rather common tactical decision among the Left/unions in my practice. They bite the bullet and take a bad decision in a single Circuit, because they fear the adverse impact of a Supreme Court decision, which of course has nationwide application. The last three times they took one of our Circuit-court “wins” to the Supremes — Teachers Local No. 1 v. Hudson; Communications Workers v. Beck; and Air Line Pilots Association v. Miller (the party seeking review is listed first) — they lost. Badly.

And while the Supremes reverse in about 65% of the cases they take (the last statistic I saw on the issue), there is that 35% of cases where they take the case to affirm and apply a good Circuit-court decision nationwide.

By: Delmarva Dealings » Blog Archive » DC Circuit Refuses to Re-Hear DC Gun Ban Case

Wed, 09 May 2007 17:31:48 +0000

[…] BVBL reports that the U. S. Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit has refused to grant the D. C. government’s request for an en banc hearing. The Second Amendment remains alive and well unless the Supremes decide to take a swipe at it. […]

By: citizenofmanassas

citizenofmanassas — Wed, 09 May 2007 00:32:14 +0000

Rick,

It does not surprise me at all what DC has been doing over the years. Of course while the leaders that be have denied Constitutional rights to their Citizens, it has protested for years they have not had full representation in Congress. Ironic I suppose.

By: NoVA Scout

NoVA Scout — Wed, 09 May 2007 00:18:25 +0000

I hope the Supreme Court takes this one. The issue is important and would benefit from a final disposition at the highest level.

By: James Young

James Young — Tue, 08 May 2007 22:46:20 +0000

Funny, Rick. But back to citizen’s point, I assume that that does not surprise him. It is, after all, the main principle of the the practice of modern Liberalism. Indeed, the practice of modern Liberalism relies upon disregard for constitutional limitations.

By: citizenofmanassas

citizenofmanassas — Tue, 08 May 2007 22:44:12 +0000

Rick,

That is funny. I guess I was not thinking of those illegals.

By: Jerry Fuhrman

Jerry Fuhrman — Tue, 08 May 2007 22:35:14 +0000

O the irony - DC may soon have taxation WITH representation for the first time in a century and a half and its delegate to Congress will oppose DC citizens’ 2nd amendment rights. Kinda hard to follow at times. Jerry

By: Rick Sincere

Rick Sincere — Tue, 08 May 2007 22:03:14 +0000

Regardless of what you think of Members of Congress, citizenofmanassas, is it really fair (or polite) to refer to them as “illegals”?

By: James Young

James Young — Tue, 08 May 2007 20:07:14 +0000

Now, if they’d only rule on my mandamus petition!

By: citizenofmanassas

citizenofmanassas — Tue, 08 May 2007 20:06:31 +0000

I can’t wait to her the hissy fit that is forthcoming from DC. A city that welcomes illegals, yet does not support a Constitutional right.