pdm
NES Member
They want to win. A bird in the hand, and so on.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
McDonald Gun-Rights Case: Round One Goes to the NRA
- Thread starter MaineCWPtraining
- Start date
They want to win. A bird in the hand, and so on.
I'm not sure if I agree with that, it seems like it will give states less power to infringe on Constitutional amendments. Meaning they couldn't just say "the 2nd doesn't apply". I suppose that would open the door to the feds challenging some state law. But that would be a good thing, if they were upholding the Constitution. The potential abuse of that ability would be the problem.
In theory, you are correct. I just expect that once this is resolved, various federal agencies will look for ways to abuse it. That is, after all, what they apparently do.
Why the NRA was granted time
For all you legal wonks out there, I was able to clear up why the Court granted oral argument time for the NRA.
At the appellate level (7th Circuit) MacDonald v Chicago was heard with two other independent cases - NRA v Chicago and NRA v Oak Park. These appeals were all filed separately and only consolidated by the 7th circuit. The NRA was NOT a party to McDonald. The 7th Circuit opinion listed and applied to all three case numbers and is correctly cited as 'MacDonald'.
All three cases were independently appealed to SCOTUS. Certiorari was only granted in the MacDonald case, thus leaving the NRA out. The other two cases were not denied certiorari, they are technically still pending. However, because the NRA was a party in the consolidated appellate case, SCOTUS rules allows them to bring the NRA in.
So to cut an unbearable story short this is a technicality. SCOTUS is recognizing that NRA is a party within the consolidated case rather then granting certiorari for two additional cases.
BTW - it's 'MacDonald' not 'McDonald'
For all you legal wonks out there, I was able to clear up why the Court granted oral argument time for the NRA.
At the appellate level (7th Circuit) MacDonald v Chicago was heard with two other independent cases - NRA v Chicago and NRA v Oak Park. These appeals were all filed separately and only consolidated by the 7th circuit. The NRA was NOT a party to McDonald. The 7th Circuit opinion listed and applied to all three case numbers and is correctly cited as 'MacDonald'.
All three cases were independently appealed to SCOTUS. Certiorari was only granted in the MacDonald case, thus leaving the NRA out. The other two cases were not denied certiorari, they are technically still pending. However, because the NRA was a party in the consolidated appellate case, SCOTUS rules allows them to bring the NRA in.
So to cut an unbearable story short this is a technicality. SCOTUS is recognizing that NRA is a party within the consolidated case rather then granting certiorari for two additional cases.
BTW - it's 'MacDonald' not 'McDonald'
I'm not Scrivener and IANAL, but what I see happening is nothing.
The only time any change will take place is when someone challenges EACH restrictive law we have in court and uses the SCOTUS ruling(s) as precedent. Even then the local/state courts must agree that our laws don't measure up before anything actually gets changed. Each of these rulings by courts are likely to be appealed ad naseum, resulting in little or no change for a long time.
Call me a pessimist, but I've lived in Ma for almost 64 years. That will turn anyone into a pessimist.
In one sense you might be right, but there's another way to look at this and it became very clear at Wednesday's H2259 hearing.
Massachusetts gun laws are all predicated on the holding in Comm. v Davis that owning firearms is NOT an individual right. Success iin MacDonald changes this foundation entirely. The committee members understood this and realize they can get out in front of this legislatively or wait for the inevitable series of court actions that would probably result in an even more confusing (albeit fairer) system then we now have. This process will be long, expensive for the state, and is unlikely to result in the kind end situation that the legislature or anyone else would have created on their own.
The timing of H2259 and MacDonald is truly serendipitous. I think lawmakers want to fix some of these problems, but I doubt it will all happen in one fell swoop as envisioned by H2259.
I'd call you a realist, not a pessimist.
MA "ain't goin' down without a fight" to the bitter end (of any restrictions)!!!
I'm not so sure about that. I think it quite likely GOAL introduced 2259 for this very reason.
Perhaps, but that would have meant exceptionally good foresight. H2259 has been in the works since the summer of '08 - before SCOTS granted cert. in MacDonald.
Nevertheless, MacDonald does give the legislature compelling motivation to do something. It also gives them cover to improve things based upon necessity rather than 'caving to the gun lobby'.
Some may disagree, but I would say the two most important things we need out of this is the abolishment of "suitability" with the CLEOs and getting rid of "The List". The work will by no means be done, but it is a great starting point.
Summer '08 was when the Heller decision was handed down, and when MacDonald was filed. I think I remember reading something about GOAL having a meeting with Gura and/or SAF around that time also.
U.S. Supreme Court Grants NRA Motion For
Divided Argument In McDonald v. City of Chicago
Friday, January 29, 2010
On Monday, January 25, the U.S. Supreme Court granted NRA’s motion to allow it to participate in the upcoming oral argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago.
“We are pleased with the Court’s decision to grant our motion,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. “NRA’s solitary goal in McDonald is to ensure that our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms applies to every law-abiding American in every state. We are hopeful that the Court will share our view that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly intended to apply the Second Amendment to the states.”
Last September, the Court agreed to consider the McDonald case, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. That court incorrectly claimed that prior Supreme Court precedent prevented it from holding in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment. NRA believes the Seventh Circuit should have followed the lead of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Nordyke v. King, which found that Supreme Court precedent does not prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. As a party in McDonald, NRA looks forward to participating in the upcoming oral argument.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement will be representing NRA at oral argument, which will occur on March 2. The NRA chose Solicitor General Clement for oral argument in this case because he is one of the leading Supreme Court advocates of our time and has argued dozens of cases before the Court. In the case at hand, he has already represented 251 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and 58 U.S. Senators in filing an historic and very important friend of the court brief, which makes a strong and effective case in favor of incorporation. Now that he is representing the NRA, he will just as strongly represent the interests of NRA members and all other Americans who believe the Second Amendment should apply equally throughout our nation. (A link to the congressional brief can be found here: http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/litigation/mcdonald_ac_congress..pdf)
During oral argument, Solicitor General Clement will ensure that the Court hears all the arguments for applying the Second Amendment to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court could reach that result either through the Privileges or Immunities Clause (as the plaintiffs in the case have emphasized), or through the Due Process Clause (as the Supreme Court has chosen to apply nearly all of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights). The NRA’s solitary goal in this case is to ensure that the Supreme Court applies the Second Amendment to all Americans throughout the country, no matter which method the Court chooses to use.
As a party to the case, NRA also had the opportunity to file a reply brief to Chicago’s arguments. That effort was led by Stephen Poss and Kevin Martin of the firm Goodwin Procter, along with Stephen Halbrook and Solicitor General Clement. A link to the NRA’s reply brief, which was filed today, can be found here.
SOURCE
Divided Argument In McDonald v. City of Chicago
Friday, January 29, 2010
On Monday, January 25, the U.S. Supreme Court granted NRA’s motion to allow it to participate in the upcoming oral argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago.
“We are pleased with the Court’s decision to grant our motion,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. “NRA’s solitary goal in McDonald is to ensure that our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms applies to every law-abiding American in every state. We are hopeful that the Court will share our view that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly intended to apply the Second Amendment to the states.”
Last September, the Court agreed to consider the McDonald case, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. That court incorrectly claimed that prior Supreme Court precedent prevented it from holding in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment. NRA believes the Seventh Circuit should have followed the lead of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Nordyke v. King, which found that Supreme Court precedent does not prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. As a party in McDonald, NRA looks forward to participating in the upcoming oral argument.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement will be representing NRA at oral argument, which will occur on March 2. The NRA chose Solicitor General Clement for oral argument in this case because he is one of the leading Supreme Court advocates of our time and has argued dozens of cases before the Court. In the case at hand, he has already represented 251 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and 58 U.S. Senators in filing an historic and very important friend of the court brief, which makes a strong and effective case in favor of incorporation. Now that he is representing the NRA, he will just as strongly represent the interests of NRA members and all other Americans who believe the Second Amendment should apply equally throughout our nation. (A link to the congressional brief can be found here: http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/litigation/mcdonald_ac_congress..pdf)
During oral argument, Solicitor General Clement will ensure that the Court hears all the arguments for applying the Second Amendment to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court could reach that result either through the Privileges or Immunities Clause (as the plaintiffs in the case have emphasized), or through the Due Process Clause (as the Supreme Court has chosen to apply nearly all of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights). The NRA’s solitary goal in this case is to ensure that the Supreme Court applies the Second Amendment to all Americans throughout the country, no matter which method the Court chooses to use.
As a party to the case, NRA also had the opportunity to file a reply brief to Chicago’s arguments. That effort was led by Stephen Poss and Kevin Martin of the firm Goodwin Procter, along with Stephen Halbrook and Solicitor General Clement. A link to the NRA’s reply brief, which was filed today, can be found here.
SOURCE
My guess is that if H2259 is enacted it will be because of the part in bold. It gives legislators who are "on the fence" about some of these issues an out. They can take the position that these changes are being forced on them by the court(s), that their "hands are tied." I'm also keeping a jaundiced eye on what happens to H2259 as it makes its way through the legislative process. There is nothing that says it will be passed in its entirety, if at all. As much as I would like to see things like "the list" go away, I think that the overriding impact of H2259 is in the licensing area. Until the state changes that, I consider everything else a secondary issue.
I may be pessimistic, but I can also see an outcome where we end up with a clear-cut right to "keep arms" but not to "bear" them. For many folks in MA this would actually be a step backward. Look at how DC is continuing to fight for the narrowest possible view of the Heller decision as it applies to them. We could end up with a clear definition of "suitability" to merely own firearms, but still have to fight the battle of suitability to actually bear firearms.
I'm crossing my fingers that the outcome will be everything we hope for, but I'm tempering that with a healthy dose of reality in the PRM.
rep308
NES Member
Meet Mr McDonald, seem like just a regular guy who needs a gun for self defence:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...chicago-gun-ban-20100129,0,6580167,full.story
here is a snippet:
From behind the wheel of his hulking GMC Suburban, 76-year-old Otis McDonald leads a crime-themed tour of his Morgan Park neighborhood. He points to the yellow brick bungalow he says is a haven for drug dealers. Down the street is the alley where five years ago he saw a teenager pull out a gun and take aim at a passing car.
Around the corner, he gestures to the weed-bitten roadside where three thugs once threatened his life.
"I know every day that I come out in the streets, the youngsters will shoot me as quick as they will a policeman," says McDonald, a trim man with a neat mustache and closely cropped gray hair. "They'll shoot a policeman as quick as they will any of their young gangbangers."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...chicago-gun-ban-20100129,0,6580167,full.story
here is a snippet:
From behind the wheel of his hulking GMC Suburban, 76-year-old Otis McDonald leads a crime-themed tour of his Morgan Park neighborhood. He points to the yellow brick bungalow he says is a haven for drug dealers. Down the street is the alley where five years ago he saw a teenager pull out a gun and take aim at a passing car.
Around the corner, he gestures to the weed-bitten roadside where three thugs once threatened his life.
"I know every day that I come out in the streets, the youngsters will shoot me as quick as they will a policeman," says McDonald, a trim man with a neat mustache and closely cropped gray hair. "They'll shoot a policeman as quick as they will any of their young gangbangers."
U.S. Supreme Court Hears Chicago Gun Ban Case
Friday, March 05, 2010
On Tuesday, March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. The case may well decide the scope and nature of gun laws in the United States for decades to come. The final decision will be handed down in a few months, most likely in June.
As we’ve reported in past alerts and in NRA magazines, McDonald is one of two challenges to the Chicago handgun ban that were filed immediately after gun owners’ landmark 2008 victory in District of Columbia v. Heller. After the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled—wrongly—that 19th century cases denied any right to Second Amendment protection against state and local laws, both McDonald and the companion case, NRA v. City of Chicago, were appealed.
The Court agreed to hear the McDonald case, but since that decision would affect the NRA case equally, the NRA was also a party to the McDonald case, and the Court granted us a share of the oral argument time.
To make our argument, NRA was fortunate to be represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, perhaps the most highly respected and experienced Supreme Court advocate in the nation. Clement has argued more than 50 cases before the high Court and, prior to representing NRA in this case, authored the pro-Second Amendment “friend of the court” brief joined by 251 U.S. House members and 58 U.S. Senators.
Solicitor General Clement strongly argued on behalf of NRA’s members—especially in opposing the idea that the Court could somehow apply only a “watered down version” of the Second Amendment to the states, so that states and cities could still pass anti-gun laws that the federal government could not.
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox commented after the argument:
“We are optimistic the Court will hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment and that handgun bans, like those in the City of Chicago and the Village of Oak Park, are unconstitutional under any standard of judicial review. This view is shared by a bipartisan group of 309 members of Congress from both chambers, 38 state attorneys general and the majority of the American people. We look forward to the decision from the Court later this Term.”
Friday, March 05, 2010
On Tuesday, March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. The case may well decide the scope and nature of gun laws in the United States for decades to come. The final decision will be handed down in a few months, most likely in June.
As we’ve reported in past alerts and in NRA magazines, McDonald is one of two challenges to the Chicago handgun ban that were filed immediately after gun owners’ landmark 2008 victory in District of Columbia v. Heller. After the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled—wrongly—that 19th century cases denied any right to Second Amendment protection against state and local laws, both McDonald and the companion case, NRA v. City of Chicago, were appealed.
The Court agreed to hear the McDonald case, but since that decision would affect the NRA case equally, the NRA was also a party to the McDonald case, and the Court granted us a share of the oral argument time.
To make our argument, NRA was fortunate to be represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, perhaps the most highly respected and experienced Supreme Court advocate in the nation. Clement has argued more than 50 cases before the high Court and, prior to representing NRA in this case, authored the pro-Second Amendment “friend of the court” brief joined by 251 U.S. House members and 58 U.S. Senators.
Solicitor General Clement strongly argued on behalf of NRA’s members—especially in opposing the idea that the Court could somehow apply only a “watered down version” of the Second Amendment to the states, so that states and cities could still pass anti-gun laws that the federal government could not.
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox commented after the argument:
“We are optimistic the Court will hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment and that handgun bans, like those in the City of Chicago and the Village of Oak Park, are unconstitutional under any standard of judicial review. This view is shared by a bipartisan group of 309 members of Congress from both chambers, 38 state attorneys general and the majority of the American people. We look forward to the decision from the Court later this Term.”
Coyote Whiskey
NES Member
Interesting article in Newsweek
http://www.newsweek.com/id/234185?GT1=43002
http://www.newsweek.com/id/234185?GT1=43002
Atty Gura was a guest on Armed American Radio on 3/14/10 and described why he took the approach that he did for this case. It's a 53 min. segment of the radio show and starts just after 7 min. into the show.
Podcast can be heard here:
http://armedamericanradio.org/2010/03/aar-broadcast-3-14-2010-hour-1/
Podcast can be heard here:
http://armedamericanradio.org/2010/03/aar-broadcast-3-14-2010-hour-1/
