DC gun ban case in jeopardy?

[LoginName]

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]

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

 

[Pilgrim]

wouldn't surprise me to see the Dems do this to avoid a SC case.

 

[Ripach]

Ahh, the old end-around. Not surprising to see this slight of hand if they feel the Supreme Court battle would be a loser for their side.

 

[LoginName]

Ahh, the old end-around. Not surprising to see this slight of hand if they feel the Supreme Court battle would be a loser for their side.

Except that this is a refile of an NRA sponsored bill.

(I'm uncertain about the extent of their involvement with this current bill though).

 

[EddieCoyle]

Ahh, the old end-around. Not surprising to see this slight of hand if they feel the Supreme Court battle would be a loser for their side.

It's co-sponsored by a Republican.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

It's co-sponsored by a Republican.

I believe it was sponsored and submitted before the DC case decision was handed down. It is very likely that some Dems will vote for it who would not have otherwise done so.

This case is the kind higher courts dread - it is quite possible there is a direct conflict between what the constitution demands and what the jurists would like to see as public policy, so the only resolution is "duck!".

The inconsistency in decisions on the 2nd vs. other bill of rights amendments is outstanding. I doubt that dissenting judge who argued that the 2nd did not apply since DC was not a state would vote to uphold a DC law prohibiting criticism of the city counsel or allowing the police to enter homes since DC is not a state and the 1st and 4th therefore do not apply.

 

[drgrant]

I don't think this bill is a conspiracy, IMO. This bill seems to get
hashed and rehashed over and over again. I don't think any anti dems would
be caught dead voting for a bill that is pro gun, even if the idea is
sabotage. Even if it did pass, it's still a win of some sort for
us... while it is not the SCOTUS determination/opinion that we desperately
-need- this bill still prominently features the 2nd amendment in its argument
for a change in the laws of the district.

-Mike

 

[RKG]

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

While I express no opinion as to whether enactment of this statute would be held to be such, there is an exception to the Munsingwear "rule" where the party that lost below now itself causes the mootness (in order to avoid affirmance on appeal). See Anderson v. Green, 513 U.S. 557, 560, 115 S. Ct. 1059, 130 L. Ed. 2d 1050 (1995). In such a case, while the appeal may be dismissed as moot, the underlying judgment is not vacated.