• 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.

SCOTUS hears Chicago Case Megathread

We should know about the Second Amendment by June

This morning the US Supreme Court granted certiorari in McDonald v. Chicago. Thus presumably by June the Court will decide if the Second Amendment applies to the States.

I predict that it will so rule, and perhaps by a surprisingly large margin. Though the liberals on the Court hate the 2A, Heller said the 2A is a fundamental right and current incorporation doctrine says fundamental rights are to be incorporated against the states. So it may well be 8-0 or 7-1 on that question (I think Sotomayor has to recuse on this case).

The real question, I think, will be what standard of scrutiny the Court adopts. The standard of scrutiny is how courts decide if a right is really being violated. If I recall correctly, Heller at least ruled out "rational basis" scrutiny which is basically "if the state can come up with pretty much any reason at all for violating the right, they're allowed to violate it".
 
Last edited:
McDonald was not the one I wanted for this. I wanted Nordyke because it had the knock on effect of dealing with what is an arm and nordyke had nothing to do with guns. McDonald is an easy one for the court, and it will only answer one question. Once that question is answered, then nordyke loses the wind in it's sails and the "nunchuka" industry has no capacity to challenge the .gov without the aid of the firerarms industry.
 
Alan Gura was on Glenn Beck's radio program this morning and announced this case. He seems to feel that he has a very strong case. When asked about taking other cities such as New York to court, he seemed to think that a victory in this case would make short work of other city's bans.
 
I really hope this ruling is in our favor.

Before Heller, the gun grabbers argued that the 2nd Amendment only applied to the states for the purpose of forming militias.

After Heller, some have argued that the decision only applied to DC and not the country as a whole. While perhaps technically correct, this view flies in the face of common sense. None of those folks would seriously argue that the other rights in the Bill of Rights were that limited.

If the ruling is in our favor, the only avenue left to the gun grabbers would be to propose and pass a Consitutional amendment, either replacing or severely altering the original 2nd amendment.

Off the top of my head, I doubt if they could get more then ten states to sign onto such an amendment. There's no doubt in my mind that Massachusetts would be one of those ten. [sad]

Regardless of what happens, I think the courts will have "job security" for the foreseeable future with a whole host of gun related issues that will be brought before them. It will be interesting to watch.
 
I see years ahead too.

Even if they vote the way they should, and incorporate it, it will take years as every state will continue to do what they've always done until someone forces a 'test' of the law against the SC rulings.

More court cases. .... ad nauseum.

I also see the whole kit and caboodle being pushed back to SCOTUS by the Brady Bunch if the makeup of the court changes to a more lefty demeanor.

It'll never really be over.
 
Now, lets see just how many of the anit's submit Amicus briefs that quote Cruikshank (1876). You know, the racist decision that empowered the Democrats in the South to enact the Jim Crow laws.

Once again, history will repeat itself and the bigots will attempt to hide their true colors by a litany of half truths and outright lies.

The fact remains that rights are rights and oppositionists are nothing more than sectarian extremists. At best, they are ignorant opportunists, and at worst, the very racist segregationist scions bent on dividing America once again.
 
terraformer said:
McDonald was not the one I wanted for this. I wanted Nordyke because it had the knock on effect of dealing with what is an arm and nordyke had nothing to do with guns. McDonald is an easy one for the court, and it will only answer one question. Once that question is answered, then nordyke loses the wind in it's sails and the "nunchuka" industry has no capacity to challenge the .gov without the aid of the firerarms industry.
Click to expand...

I think you meant Maloney when you said Nordyke. Maloney v Rice is the case challenging the NY nunchuku ban. Nordyke v King is the California case about gun shows at county fairgrounds.

IMO McDonald is a better case than the similar NRA v Chicago, because it challenges more provisions of the Chicago law, and it's being run by Alan Gura, who won one for the good guys already. Also, McDonald raises the issue of overruling the Slaughterhouse cases, which will attract a lot of interest and support from liberal legal scholars.
 
jar said:
I think you meant Maloney when you said Nordyke. Maloney v Rice is the case challenging the NY nunchuku ban. Nordyke v King is the California case about gun shows at county fairgrounds.

IMO McDonald is a better case than the similar NRA v Chicago, because it challenges more provisions of the Chicago law, and it's being run by Alan Gura, who won one for the good guys already. Also, McDonald raises the issue of overruling the Slaughterhouse cases, which will attract a lot of interest and support from liberal legal scholars.
Click to expand...

You are right, maloney is what I meant.
 
Hopefully this works out well for the people of Chicago. The next thing on the list should be the right for CCW outside their homes because right now in Illinois there is no such thing as CCW outside ones home.
 
Sbh87 said:
Hopefully this works out well for the people of Chicago. The next thing on the list should be the right for CCW outside their homes because right now in Illinois there is no such thing as CCW outside ones home.
Click to expand...

Palmer v DC (carry in DC) was filed by Alan Gura in August of this year. Sykes v McGinness challenges the CCW policies of two California counties. It was filed in May. The MSJ in Sykes was recently continued pending Nordyke, which was punted by the 9th circuit (en banc) pending a Supreme court ruling in McDonald/Maloney/NRA.

It looks like the timeline for McDonald would be oral argument in February or March, and a decision sometime in summer 2010. If we win that one, I think laws are going to start toppling fast. (For judicial values of fast, anyway.)
 
IANAL, but assuming that SCOTUS decides in favor of incorporation, very little changes automatically. Strict prohibitions on possession in the home, such as those in Chicago and a few other places are out. Essentially arbitrary systems limiting possession such as NYC and perhaps Massachusetts are seriously endangered, and are very likely to fall when challenged. Nothing changes regarding carry unless and until some case arguing that "keep and bear" includes carry in public. Assuming that happens, it will almost certainly be against some places such as Illinois or Wisconsin where carry is banned. If that case wins, subsequent cases would undoubtedly follow against arbitrary carry license systems (e.g., NY, MA, CA). Nothing moves too fast in the judicial system.

Ken
 
You would have to figure that after the way they ruled on the Heller case that we would have a decent chance of the court ruling in our favor but it seem conspicuously soon after obama's plant getting affirmed to the court...
 
My guess as to what'll happen in the years to come...

Here's my totally not-a-lawyer take on how McDonald and its progeny will affect things.

Note that this is my guess as to what will happen, not what I want to happen.

  • The Second Amendment will be incorporated against the states. But...
  • Existing federal laws about handgun transfers (like the FFL-to-FFL requirement for interstate transfers), any future "assault weapons" bans, etc. will be substantially upheld.
  • The courts will not find any constitutional right to carry (open or concealed) in public.
  • The courts will not find any constitutional right to own firearms without a license.
  • Absolute bans on having a handgun in the home will be ruled unconstitutional.
  • In states that want to license handguns, courts will require that at a minimum there must be a shall-issue "self-defense in the home" license and that such licenses must include the right to take a locked, unloaded firearm to a range or other practice facility and use it there.
  • "May issue" licensing regimes (especially patchwork ones like in MA) will ultimately be held unconstitutional (on equal protection grounds).
  • As long as a roster has "enough" firearms on it or regulations like MA's firearms consumer "protection" ones don't prohibit "too many" firearms, they will be upheld. Specifically, both the MA EOPS list and the AG's list will, sadly, be upheld.
 
Sbh87 said:
Hopefully this works out well for the people of Chicago. The next thing on the list should be the right for CCW outside their homes because right now in Illinois there is no such thing as CCW outside ones home.
Click to expand...

Join the New Jersey club!
 
KMaurer said:
IANAL, but assuming that SCOTUS decides in favor of incorporation, very little changes automatically. Strict prohibitions on possession in the home, such as those in Chicago and a few other places are out. Essentially arbitrary systems limiting possession such as NYC and perhaps Massachusetts are seriously endangered, and are very likely to fall when challenged. Nothing changes regarding carry unless and until some case arguing that "keep and bear" includes carry in public. Assuming that happens, it will almost certainly be against some places such as Illinois or Wisconsin where carry is banned. If that case wins, subsequent cases would undoubtedly follow against arbitrary carry license systems (e.g., NY, MA, CA). Nothing moves too fast in the judicial system.

Ken
Click to expand...

Extremely sound observations.
 
lagrangian said:
Here's my totally not-a-lawyer take on how McDonald and its progeny will affect things.

Note that this is my guess as to what will happen, not what I want to happen.

  • The Second Amendment will be incorporated against the states. But...
  • Existing federal laws about handgun transfers (like the FFL-to-FFL requirement for interstate transfers), any future "assault weapons" bans, etc. will be substantially upheld.
  • The courts will not find any constitutional right to carry (open or concealed) in public.
  • The courts will not find any constitutional right to own firearms without a license.
  • Absolute bans on having a handgun in the home will be ruled unconstitutional.
  • In states that want to license handguns, courts will require that at a minimum there must be a shall-issue "self-defense in the home" license and that such licenses must include the right to take a locked, unloaded firearm to a range or other practice facility and use it there.
  • "May issue" licensing regimes (especially patchwork ones like in MA) will ultimately be held unconstitutional (on equal protection grounds).
  • As long as a roster has "enough" firearms on it or regulations like MA's firearms consumer "protection" ones don't prohibit "too many" firearms, they will be upheld. Specifically, both the MA EOPS list and the AG's list will, sadly, be upheld.
Click to expand...


I disagree on the last point; such lists can be shown to be inherently and inexorably arbitrary.
 
I think that the lists of approved firearms will either go by the boards or be substantially expanded, and so-called "consumer protection" regulations greatly weakened, because the rational for both is essentially flawed. All one has to look at to see this is the fact that they always exempt police. If a gun is unsafe or defective, there's absolutely no reason that police would want to use it. It's also hard to argue that the criteria used by most states aren't arbitrary, given the objective and well-tested standards used by SAAMI. It's a bit like arguing for your own set of "safety" criteria for automobiles that are both different from and require expensive, redundant testing over and above those done by the federal government and existing non-government testing organizations.

Ken
 

Similar threads

Supreme Court Hears Texas Gun Store Owner’s Lawsuit Against Bump Stock Ban
2 3
Replies
87
Views
2K
HorizontalHunter
HorizontalHunter
Chicago police officer shot dead and has car taken during commute home: Officials
Replies
1
Views
161
gerrycaruso
gerrycaruso
Video: Female University of Chicago Student Disarms Would-Be Robber by Ejecting His Magazine
Replies
18
Views
379
Masswhole
Masswhole
Concealed Carrier Kills Alleged Robber in Chicago Shootout
Replies
3
Views
181
Rocky Mosasaurus
Rocky Mosasaurus
Heart-stopping bodycam shows Chicago man, 26, 'open fire on cops' days after firearms court appearance - prompting officers to shoot back 90 times
Replies
29
Views
539
Reptile
Reptile
Back
Top Bottom