Parker and Race
Activists should be aware that as the “Parker” case heads to appeal at the Supreme Court, it may no longer be the “Parker” case. The pleading for certiorari will be titled “District of Columbia v. Heller” another of the original plaintiffs.
Asked why the change was made, an insider with knowledge of the case suggests, “D.C. has switched to Heller probably because Parker is an African-American female and Heller is a less sympathetic figure as a white male. Our side will probably keep the name Parker when responding to the D.C. cert petition, and ultimately, it’ll be up to the Supremes.”
I thought it was because Parker moved out of the District and now lacks standing so another plaintiff stepped in.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:17 am
As I understand it, Heller was long-ago determined to be the only plaintiff with standing (ruling by the original District Court, if I member creckly).
August 28th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Korwin seems to have been off a few things lately, including the increasing gun purchases based on tax receipts that are based on the price of goods that we all know are increasing at incredible rates right now. That seems to have been an obvious one to those who understand P-R well, and I would expect him to be in that category.
I haven’t researched it myself, so I won’t claim to be absolutely for or against his claim, but it sounds…off. I wouldn’t give it much merit, partially because I also heard that standing was the real issue. If he has proof, that’s great. But an anonymous insider isn’t cutting it for me on legal issues.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Boyd nailed it.
It has nothing to do with discrimination based on ethnic or national origin, color, race, religion, or sex [or residence of anyone].
All USSC case names are styled “Petitioner v. Respondent”, regardless of which party initiated the lawsuit in the lower court. The party that lost in the lower court is called the petitioner, and the party that prevailed is called the respondent.
DC lost in the lower court (DC becomes the petitioner).
Heller was the only one with “standing” in Parker et al. v DC (Heller becomes the respondent).
Therefore, if the USSC grants the petition for writ of certiorari (Cert.) the name should be “District of Columbia v. Heller et al.”
All papers submitted to the USSC will refer to the case as “Parker et al. v DC” UNTIL the USSC grants cert–[IF cert is granted] then it becomes a new case with a new name.
For the whole reasoning of why only Heller had standing, see the published decision in Parker v DC [PDF file], pages 5 through about 12.
http://tinyurl.com/ywcg7k
The the gist of it is:
“The noteworthy distinction in this case—a distinction
mentioned in appellants’ complaint and pressed by them on
appeal—is that appellant Heller has applied for and been denied
a registration certificate to own a handgun, a fact not present in
Seegars. The denial of the gun license is significant; it
constitutes an injury independent of the District’s prospective
enforcement of its gun laws, and an injury to which the stringent
requirements for pre-enforcement standing under Navegar and
Seegars would not apply. Since D.C. Code § 22-4504
(prohibition against carrying a pistol without a license) and D.C.
Code § 7-2507.02 (disassembly/trigger lock requirement) would
amount to further conditions on the certificate Heller desires,
Heller’s standing to pursue the license denial would subsume
these other claims too.”
[…]
“In sum, we conclude that Heller has standing to raise his
§ 1983 challenge to specific provisions of the District’s gun
control laws.”