Wednesday, March 14, 2007

More on the Parker v DC case (Second Amendment)

Gura and Possessky, The law firm for the successful appellants in the DC gun ban case posted all of the public documents pertaining to this case. They posted some background. This is a gold mine of information that all legal begals and 2nd Amendment advocates should read. All the legal briefs, letters, and decisions at both the District and Appellate level involved in this case are posted online at Gura and Possessky's web site.

My opinion of the NRA dropped dramaticly. Why? Well, I'll let Alan Gura explain one with the overview of the litigation.

(snip)
Before the court could rule in our case, the National Rifle Association sponsored a copycat lawsuit entitled Seegars v. Ashcroft (subsequently Gonzales), and immediately sought to have their lawsuit joined with ours. The NRA had tried to dissuade the filing of Parker. Having failed in that effort, they lobbied unsuccessfully to alter our litigation strategy. Seegars was designed to raise issues we had rejected in our case, in an attempt to have the courts avoid interpretation of the Second Amendment. Seegars counsel was an attorney who had been involved in the early stages of our case, but who was not retained to proceed with us much further.

It was not a coincidence that the NRA had failed to defend the Second Amendment rights of Washington, D.C. residents in court for over twenty-five years, but suddenly sponsored a copycat action immediately upon our having filed suit. We successfully defeated the NRA’s attempt to use Seegars as a vehicle to muscle in on our litigation. The District Court agreed with us that the behavior of Seegars counsel raised substantial ethical and attorney-client issues that would delay and complicate the litigation. Unfortunately, he was not disqualified from continuing to work on the Seegars matter as we had requested, and each case proceeded independently, on separate tracks before separate judges.

Meanwhile, the court excused the defendants in our case from compliance with their deadlines, allowing them generous extensions of time to file their pleadings, and allowed participation by various amici.

The NRA’s tactics in Seegars triggered the defendants in that case to raise substantial standing issues which were not raised by the defendants in our case, or their amici. Consequently, at oral argument in Parker, in October, 2003, the court asked the parties to submit additional briefing on the question of standing. However, during the course of the argument, the defendants’ attorney vowed that our clients would be prosecuted if they were to break the law.
(snip)


The NRA's attorneys need to take a procedure course.

Congratulations to the Gura and Possessky firm on their excellent victory, and good luck to them in any future appeals of this case if it goes that far.

2 comments:

Luther said...

sdqwdsqw

Pentagon Transcripts Show Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Confesses to Sept. 11 Attacks

liberals Hate America said...

3-22-07


GOP Forces House Democrats To Pull DC Voting Bill

House Democrats pulled a bill to grant voting rights to Washington, D.C., after Republicans offered a motion that would repeal the gun ban for the District.

The move is a clear signal that Democrats have lost control of the House floor on the voting rights issue after minority Republicans presented the Democratic majority with a politically unpalatable motion that their conservative members would be forced to support for fear of angering the gun rights community.

Fifty-two Democrats voted with Republicans on a similar measure to repeal the gun ban in 2004. That would be more than enough support for Republicans to add a repeal to the voting rights bill - something a majority of Democrats would vehemently oppose.

Republicans have taken great pride in offering motions to recommit during their time in the minority, an often over-looked legislative procedure that has allowed them to amend various bills on the House floor.

Democratic Rep. Ellen Tauscher of California, who served as chair when the House began consideration of the motion, called the postponement at the request of the Democratic leadership, saying the speaker has complete discretion to postpone consideration of any legislation at any time.

Democrats scrambled to remedy the situation on the floor but were eventually forced to pull the bill to begin debate on a controversial wartime funding measure that is expected on the floor Friday.

Republicans could offer a similar procedural motion to slow consideration of that measure whenever it comes to the floor.

The House was expected to approve the bill to grant Washington, DC, a vote in the House by a wide margin, with several Republicans expected to vote in favor of the legislation.