Parker Decision Upheld
The lamestream media told you:
Nothing.
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
The District of Columbia's request to have a full-court ("en banc") re-hearing of the Parker case -- the case that reinstated the people's ability to legally have an operating firearm in their homes -- was turned down by the D.C. Court of Appeals on May 8, 2007.
This is good news, maybe. It means the excellent original pro-rights decision stands. An en banc hearing could have overturned it.
Residents of D.C. can now keep a registered operable firearm at home (but apparently can't buy one, or transport one through the District to their homes). Hey, it's a good first step.
If it had been overturned en banc, the good guys would have appealed to the Supreme Court, which they believe has pretty good justices facing an excellent case. It's a risk, as it always will be, but factors seem as good now as they may ever be.
Now it's up to officials in D.C. to appeal to the Supreme Court. Will they? They hate guns, gun owners, and want the rights stripped away again from their innocent residents. They want the system they've had in place since 1976 -- no Second Amendment for D.C. residents. Their criminals are heavily armed, but at least the public is not. "For safety."
But they must know their case is weak, the plaintiffs are excellent, honorable, judicious individuals seeking their rights, not some sleazy bottom feeder trying to duck a sentence for some crime. Will they appeal?
They have little to lose. If SCOTUS overturns the Circuit, D.C. officials win. If the High Court affirms, they're no worse off than they are now. Their direct concerns are local -- but everyone knows the nation hangs in the balance. Will the big gun anti-gunners in Congress twist arms behind the scenes and convince them to leave this case alone?
If D.C. officials appeal, it will make the news, big time. If the High Court takes the case -- another unknown -- it will set the stage for the biggest gun-rights confrontation, maybe in our entire history.
The Washington Post argued in an editorial that the D.C. mayor owes it to the residents to appeal to the Supreme Court. In other words, the esteemed Post believes the city should spend its taxpayer's dollars to try whatever it can to remove its taxpayer's rights. The New York Times expressed its views in an editorial cleverly entitled, "The Right to Ban Arms."
May you live in interesting times.
Tags: gun legislation, Parker
Recent Comments
Read the last 100 comments on one handy page here!