Triggerfinger

Seegars v Gonzalez: Government's opposition to rehearing...

A few months ago I posted commentary on the petition for rehearing in Seegars v Gonzalez.  That petition followed the decision by the DC Court of Appeals.  If you're having trouble keeping track, well, so am I... at any rate, the way we left the case, the ruling from the three-judge panel was unfavorable, but still left us better off than the ruling pre-appeal.  (It's better to lose on a technicality that lets the court dodge the issue than to lose on the merits and set even more unfavorable precedent for the 2nd Amendment).  The petition requests a hearing en banc (that is, before all the judges on the appellate court), and of course the government has the opportunity to respond and argue against such a hearing; that response is what I will be commenting on.

The government's arguments are, in brief:
  1. A pre-enforcement challenge to a criminal statute can only have standing for "freedom of expression" cases, unless failure to grant an injunction would result in irrepairable damages.
  2. An administrative procedure for review is available; plaintiffs did not follow the established procedure; therefore, plaintiffs should not have standing.
  3. "There's no reason to think that removing a trigger lock in the course of self defense in one's home would be a violation of law".
  4. This case is too messy to make good precedent.

Check the groups below and enter your email address to receive updates by email:

Arms Control-->Lawsuits-->Seegars
Earth-->United States
Analysis

Email Address:

The trackback URL for this entry is: http://triggerfinger.org/weblog/servlet/trackback/6530



debt consolidation loan for home owner

hyacinth acceded tipper anastomoses Irrawaddy oval disposing debt free letter settlement http://www.only-debt.com/debt-free-letter-settlement.html

No comments have been posted so far.


Rating Notify me of new comments on this entry
From
Email
Homepage
Subject
Comment