Washington DC Appeals Heller Case to USSC

[qwer1234]

Sorry for not posting this in the "Gun Confiscations" thread, but I figured it would get lost over there.

The attorneys for Heller have created a web site - http://dcguncase.com/blog/ - that has links to all filings, petitions, judgements, etc. It makes for some very interesting reading.

Personally I hope that the USSC takes this case since there is a split among the Appellate courts as to the interpretation of the Second Amendment, and whether it protects an individual right or a collective right.

[JoeC]

I am going have to bone up on this one hopefully no lame posters will get the thread locked before I can reply,I was under the impression that the other plaintiffs lacked standing as far as 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. The appellate court still proceed on the second amendment issue,and cited Emerson. I guess they did not see Emerson as an anomaly.
JoeC

[deadlock]

I am going have to bone up on this one hopefully no lame posters will get the thread locked before I can reply,I was under the impression that the other plaintiffs lacked standing as far as 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. The appellate court still proceed on the second amendment issue,and cited Emerson. I guess they did not see Emerson as an anomaly.
JoeC

You got the thread banned, Joe and if you and your friend continue to send me hostile, aggressive pm's, I'll post them on the website for the administrator to read!

Your type of behavior isn't tolerated on this forum. If you like that style return to the OTHER forum.

[aaron]

The appellate court still proceed on the second amendment issue,and cited Emerson. I guess they did not see Emerson as an anomaly.[/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
JoeC

There's more than one appellate court in the country. Did you have a particular one in mind?

[danielpalos]

When were the various Militia Acts nullified?

[JoeC]

You got the thread banned, Joe and if you and your friend continue to send me hostile, aggressive pm's, I'll post them on the website for the administrator to read!

Your type of behavior isn't tolerated on this forum. If you like that style return to the OTHER forum.

Hey take a long walk off a short pier,I never P.M'd you dont lie,if I had you would have posted it. So if you cant play nice take a hike troll.

There's more than one appellate court in the country. Did you have a particular one in mind?

For the purpose of this thread that would be United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit.478 F.3d 370, 375 U.S.App.D.C. 140
All though the search is not limited you are more than welcome to cite 9th Cir decisions.
JoeC

[JoeC]

As far as the courts ruling on standing under .§ 1983 the D.C court in my view made the proper ruling,given the courts history ,all though D.C.Code § 22-4504 is very restrictive,all but one plaintiff satisfied the requirements to proceed under 1983 litigation.
Here is how the court addressed the issue of standing:
This is not a new proposition. We have consistently treated a license or permit denial pursuant to a state or federal administrative scheme as an Article III injury. See, e.g., Cassell v. F.C.C., 154 F.3d 478(D.C.Cir.1998) (reviewing denial of license application to operate private land mobile radio service); Wilkett v. I.C.C., 710 F.2d 861 (reviewing denial of application for expanded trucking license); see also City of Bedford v. F.E.R.C., 718 F.2d 1164, 1168 (D.C.Cir.1983)(describing wrongful denial of a preliminary hydroelectric permit as an injury warranting review). The interests injured by an adverse licensing determination may be interests protected at common law, or they may be created by statute. And of course, a licensing decision can also trench upon constitutionally protected interests.In sum, we conclude that Heller has standing to raise his § 1983 challenge to specific provisions of the District's gun control laws.
The court also concluded,as in Emerson:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and an individual's enjoyment of the right is not contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

Which is what I pointed out in the thread that had been locked due to misbehavior. This case unlike Emerson seeks damages under 1983:
42 U.S.C.§ 1983
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

Reading 1983 the courts deduction seem logical to me,and I doubt would the Supreme court would overrule it. The court concludes:
District of Columbia's general threat to prosecute violations of its gun control laws did not constitute an Article III injury sufficient to confer standing on citizens to bring an action challenging the gun control laws on Second Amendment grounds, given that the citizens only expressed an intention to violate the District of Columbia's gun control laws but had suffered no injury in fact.

All though D.C.Code § 22-4504 it does not rise to a 1983 litigation.
If it did the whole city could file.
The case could take a turn for the worse at the supreme court could uphold D.C.Code § 22-4504 under the following:
United States v Cruikshank (1876) 92 US 542, 23 L Ed 588
Presser v Illinois (1886) 116 US 252, 29 L Ed 615, 6 S Ct 580
Miller v Texas (1894) 153 US 535, 38 L Ed 812, 14 S Ct 874
The issue of state regulation of firearms have long been settled. Thats my opinion on the case.
JoeC

[danielpalos]

deadlock,

How is this, in any way, shape, or form, hostile or aggressive?

I was being facetious with the word bazookaniers.

It was a play on grenadiers; and, they, along with artillery are specifically enumerated in the militia acts.

Would you feel the same way if you had, actually had, any logic and reason to support your own flame baiting of me?

[JoeC]

deadlock,

How is this, in any way, shape, or form, hostile or aggressive?




Would you feel the same way if you had, actually had, any logic and reason to support your own flame baiting of me?

Okay everybody knock it off and play nice,it obvious there are posters that troll the board to get threads locked,and she is one of them so ignore her nasty remarks.
The poster wants to talk Parker v. District of Columbia (Heller) deadlock is not the topic,all though I'm sure she would like it to be.
JoeC

[danielpalos]

So, when were the various Militia Acts nullified?