I doubt this bill has much of a chance passing, but if it does, it could stop the
Parker .vs DC case dead in it's tracks (Congress repeals gun ban, the case becomes moot, SCOTUS won't bother with reviewing the case). [sad2]
Full text of bill at http://thomas.loc.gov
From Eugene Volokh's website...
http://volokh.com/posts/1173923543.shtml
Parker .vs DC case dead in it's tracks (Congress repeals gun ban, the case becomes moot, SCOTUS won't bother with reviewing the case). [sad2]
District of Columbia Personal Protection Act (Introduced in House)
HR 1399 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1399
To restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 8, 2007
Mr. ROSS (for himself and Mr. SOUDER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
A BILL
To restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `District of Columbia Personal Protection Act'.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.
(3) The law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia are deprived by local laws of handguns, rifles, and shotguns that are commonly kept by law-abiding persons throughout the United States for sporting use and for lawful defense of their persons, homes, businesses, and families.
(4) The District of Columbia has the highest per capita murder rate in the Nation, which may be attributed in part to local laws prohibiting possession of firearms by law-abiding persons who would otherwise be able to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own homes and businesses.
(5) The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended by the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, provide comprehensive Federal regulations applicable in the District of Columbia as elsewhere. In addition, existing District of Columbia criminal laws punish possession and illegal use of firearms by violent criminals and felons. Consequently, there is no need for local laws which only affect and disarm law-abiding citizens.
(6) Legislation is required to correct the District of Columbia's law in order to restore the fundamental rights of its citizens under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and thereby enhance public safety.
Full text of bill at http://thomas.loc.gov
From Eugene Volokh's website...
Would Repealing D.C. Gun Ban Prevent Supreme Court Review / En Banc Review in Second Amendment Case?
Reader Michael Brock writes:
A new bill was just introduced in the House, "To restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia"
This bill would effectively repeal the laws that were struck down in Parker. If this bill passes, would that have any negative influence on the cert. worthiness of Parker?
You bet. I doubt the bill will get enacted. But if it is, and if the D.C. gun ban is mostly repealed (something the bill seems to try to do, though I haven't checked all the statutory cross-references to make sure it succeeds), that would make the declaratory and injunctive challenge at the heart of the Parker case moot, and would prevent en banc review and Supreme Court review.
Unless I'm mistaken, it would also lead to the D.C. Circuit panel decision's being vacated -- and thus losing its precedential effect -- under the so-called Munsingwear doctrine. "The established practice of the Court in dealing with a civil case from a court in the federal system which has become moot while on its way here or pending our decision on the merits is to reverse or vacate the judgment below and remand with a direction to dismiss."
http://volokh.com/posts/1173923543.shtml
Last edited: