DC v Parker - Appeals Court denies re-hearing, on to SCOTUS?

Some good news from the DC Court of Appeals. The first appellate ruling stands, as the full DC Circuit declines to hear the case. When a case goes to appeals, a 3 judge panel hears the case. After that hearing, an appeal can be made for the full circuit to hear the case. The full circuit can decide to hear the case at its discretion. They chose not to, and now it in the hands of SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States). I don't claim to predict what SCOTUS will do, as I can see anything from a denial to hear the case to 6-3 against us to a 6-3 or 7-2 decision in our favor. It will be interesting, doubly so, since I think if SCOTUS hears this case, it could be decides in the middle of the 2008 election, which is real bad news for a gun grabber like Obama, Edwards, Hillary, or Giuliani.

From the Washington Post

"A federal appeals court in Washington today refused to reconsider a ruling that struck down a restrictive D.C. ban on gun ownership, setting the stage for a potential constitutional battle over the Second Amendment in the Supreme Court.

D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, holding an afternoon press conference after the court's decision was made public, said he was disappointed in the ruling and that the city will review its options before deciding what to do next. Fenty has vowed that the city would fight to defend the D.C. law because the restriction on owning handguns in the city was critical to stemming gun-related violence and crime"

The judges who supported re-hearing the case are Bill Clinton appointees,
Merrick Garland, Judith Rogers and David Tatel and George HW Bush appointee A. Raymond Randolph. One of the dissenting judges, Karen Henderson (GHWB appointee), opposed re-hearing the case along with Reagan appointees David Sentelle, Doug Ginsburg, and George W Bush appointees Janice Rogers Brown, Brett Kavanaugh, and Thomas Griffith.

The judicial appointees are the number one reason why I do not regret by vote for Bush. In fact, it was the reason why I voted for him, despite many policy differences regarding his stance on the size of government. The judiciary is the number one issue with me, regarding 2008.