It looks like nobody else has reported this yet. I trust it's OK to forward this message, since I'm just one of many recipients of emails about developments in the case.
I've deleted the attachment, since it probably wouldn't go through the list anyway. But all of the documents in the case are here: http://www.alangura.com/parker/ and the opinion is inside the "district court" folder. -- Bob Woolley St. Paul, MN [EMAIL PROTECTED] "[T]his concept of 'national defense' cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise of legislative power designed to promote such a goal. Implicit in the term 'national defense' is the notion of defending those values and ideals which set this Nation apart. For almost two centuries, our country has taken singular pride in the democratic ideals enshrined in its Constitution.... It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties...which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile." -- United States Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Robel, 1967 ------ Forwarded Message From: "Bob Levy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: Cato Institute Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:13:43 -0500 To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: DC gun suit I am pleased to report that U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan has issued an opinion in Parker v. District of Columbia, our lawsuit challenging the DC gun ban on Second Amendment grounds. As we anticipated, our motion for summary judgment was rejected and the District's motion to dismiss was granted. We will immediately file an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where the legal issues will be subject to that court's independent review. Notwithstanding an NRA-sponsored parallel case, which is also on appeal, we will now have our day in the appellate court and control the course of the Parker litigation, all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court, if necessary. Judge Sullivan's opinion (see the attached file, USDCopinion.pdf) is 15 pages, devoted entirely to the Second Amendment issue -- no standing or other problems such as those that plague the NRA's case. Although the judge credits the force of our arguments, he arrives at the wrong result by misinterpreting the Supreme Court's 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller. Here is his concluding statement: "While plaintiffs extol many thought-provoking and historically interesting arguments for finding an individual right [under the Second Amendment], this Court would be in error to overlook sixty-five years of unchanged Supreme Court precedent ... rejecting an individual right to bear arms not in conjunction with service in the Militia." We look forward to challenging that erroneous proposition on appeal. -- Robert A. Levy Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies Cato Institute c/o 8787 Bay Colony Drive Naples, FL 34108 Phone: 239-566-7139 ------ End of Forwarded Message _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
