No Wailing nor Gnashing of Teeth... Yet.

It appears that the District Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C. has denied in a 6-to-4 vote to re-hear Parker v. D.C. en banc. This is good news - they won't be overturning the three-judge panel 2-1 decision that rejected Washington's draconian gun laws. Eugene Volokh has the details. A quick check of the major news outlets shows that pretty much nobody else does. As Eugene notes, the City will now almost definitely file an appeal to the Supreme Court, and

...the petition will likely be filed in mid-August. That would mean the Supreme Court will decide in late September whether to hear the case — and if it does agree to hear the case ("grant cert"), it will hear it in early 2008, with a decision handed down by early July of 2008.

Which would put it right before the November election.

Want to bet that gun control will be a major topic in the next Presidential election?

Me neither. I expect the court to deny certiorari and dodge the question once more. I could be wrong, though.

UPDATE: SCOTUSBlog thinks otherwise.

UPDATE II: Now that I'm home and had a chance to read some details, I'm quite surprised to learn that Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson was one of the bench who voted against the en banc rehearing. She was the dissenting opinion in the original case. Judge Silberman, who wrote the original opinion, is a Senior Circuit judge and was not able to vote on the en banc rehearing, nor (as I understand it) would he have been able to sit on the bench for the case.

Judge Henderson's vote could have made it 5-5, and while that wouldn't have altered the result (a majority has to agree to re-hear), it would have been a political talking point ("Look how divided the Court is!") So the $64k question is, "Why?" Did she believe that a rehearing would have simply delayed the inevitable? Did she just want to dodge the question and kick the problem upstairs? Has she been convinced (after the fact) that the majority was right, after all?

Inquiring minds want to know...

Bear in mind, though, that even if SCOTUS hears Parker, there's no guarantee it will be decided A) in the favor of an individual right, much less B) be "incorporated" against infringement by the states under the 14th Amendment. That question was deliberately not raised by the plaintiffs in Parker, and is well established precedent in Cruikshank and Presser.

Which is why I fully expect denial of cert.