July 28th, 2008 at 6:18 pm [...] could get confusing We had D.C. v. Heller, now we have Heller v. DC. Dick Heller is taking D.C. back to court, claiming that the new laws do not honor the [...]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EXPLANATION: The original case was our challange to the city & was named “Parker, et al., vs. DC” which later became “Heller [ I ] vs. DC.”

When the city took their request to the Supreme Court, it was then THEIR challange, hence, “DC vs. Heller.”

NOW, in the city’s black spirit, we must RE-Challange them so it is again,
“Heller (II) vs. DC.”

AND — Heller III, IV, & V are on the drawing board.

I’m now just a security guard,
surrounding myself with superior talent,
as an indicator to let everyone know we can all
strike back @ hammer & sickle gov’t ! !

I don’t. Should Obama be elected, the first ones to jump ship will likely be Stevens, followed by Ginsburg. Certainly the core four of the majority would not go anywhere given an Obama presidency, and I highly doubt that Kennedy would go anywhere. Besides, SCOTUS decisions, even those voted 5-4, are not easily vacated.

anyone else see this being possible?

I guess that’s why there are folks who read the Americans with Disabilities Act so as to provide the minimum required compliance. :(

There’s not really any suit that could be filed, other than the kind Halbrook and Gardiner just filed on Heller’s behalf. A federal civil rights suit would have to be filed seeking an injunction against said activity, but you could not seek monetary damages suing Fenty in his official capacity as mayor. You can sue him in his personal capacity, but then he can claim qualified immunity. Because Fenty technically isn’t violating the original Heller case, he followed The Court’s order to issue Mr. Heller a license for the firearm at question, overcoming his immunity might be difficult.

I definitely agree Fenty isn’t acting in good faith here, but DC’s ridiculous machine gun law was not what was challenged by the original Heller case.

i am hoping that the court will do what it did in the past with the heller challenge and rule that all of the laws in question are invalid…

depending on the next president, a DC challenge back to the SCOTUS will either affirm the previous heller ruling or it will vacate it… this is where it might get sticky

[quote]The above requires payment of a fee, the amount of which is left to the boundless discretion of the Chief of Police, in order to register, and hence lawfully to possess a pistol. Predicating the right lawfully to possess a pistol as guaranteed by the Second Amendment on the payment of any fee, and moreso an undefined fee with no limit according to the arbitrary will of the Chief, infringes on the right of the people, including plaintiffs herein, to keep and bear arms.[/quote]

Heh.

More seriously (much more seriously): does anyone know the laws in DC? Can Fenty, etc, be sued or be obliged to repay money spent on trying to circumvent the SCOTUS decision? From this distance, it seems pretty clear that the DC Council is trying to get around Heller instead of throwing in the towel.
Or is this one of those ‘wait until the next election’ kind of problems?

I’m just kidding–don’t get all outraged at me.

Good.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/0728heller.pdf