SCOTUS hears Chicago Case Megathread

...the notion that the Second Amendment right restricting state and local gun laws would not be an absolute right had significant appeal, it appeared.
Click to expand...

This is very bad. There are levels with which they apply constitutional protection. Strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny and rational basis. No other enumerated right is covered by anything less than strict scrutiny in direct challenges. In this case it looks like they may downgrade the 2nd to intermediate scrutiny as the top protection. Not good...
 
terraformer said:
This is very bad. There are levels with which they apply constitutional protection. Strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny and rational basis. No other enumerated right is covered by anything less than strict scrutiny in direct challenges. In this case it looks like they may downgrade the 2nd to intermediate scrutiny as the top protection. Not good...
Click to expand...

It's not good, but we can work with this.

We're taking baby steps here, it looks as though we're going to win a case that will strike down many guns laws, though it's still a start.

Heller was the first step that opened the door to this challenge, next another challenge will come up to further define the various "reasonable restrictions" in our favor.

Baby step, they took away our rights little by little, and that's the same way we're going to have to get them back.
 
gjones77 said:
It's not good, but we can work with this.
Click to expand...
The trouble is that these issues can take a generation or 4 to resolve... Once a bad decision is made by SCOTUS it can take 100 years to reverse... I have to agree with Terra - if they special case this, it will cost us dearly for decades to come.
 
gjones77 said:
It's not good, but we can work with this.

We're taking baby steps here, it looks as though we're going to win a case that will strike down many guns laws, though it's still a start.

Heller was the first step that opened the door to this challenge, next another challenge will come up to further define the various "reasonable restrictions" in our favor.

Baby step, they took away our rights little by little, and that's the same way we're going to have to get them back.
Click to expand...
Yup. If it effectively took away the discretionary LTC licensing (for possession, at least), that would be a step forward. Of course, even if the decision effectively does that, I expect we'll have to litigate to get it to be observed here in MA. [angry]
 
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the dissenters in Heller, then moved in to press Gura on just what “unenumerated rights” would be protected if the Court were to revive the “privileges or immunities” clause. It was a theme that would recur often thereafter, solidifying the appearance that the argument had virtually no chance of succeeding. (In fact, when Gura near the end of the argument returned to the podium for his rebuttal, his time was used up by Justices Ginsburg and Anthony M. Kennedy exploring what other rights might come into being if the Court gave new life to the “privileges or immunities” clause. He responded that he could not provide a full list, to which Justice Scalia retorted: “Doesn’t that trouble you?” (It was obvious that it troubled the Court.)
Click to expand...

This is also not good. It signals the court is less interested in protecting rights than they are protecting the status quo. That being anything not enumerated as a right becomes a privilege offered, taken away and controlled on whim by government to it's subjects. ie; You have a right to walk down the street without ID, but you can't drive without one. The constitution is being pecked to death by modern technological convenience and made into a shadow of it's former self.
 
M1911 said:
Yup. If it effectively took away the discretionary LTC licensing (for possession, at least), that would be a step forward. Of course, even if the decision effectively does that, I expect we'll have to litigate to get it to be observed here in MA. [angry]
Click to expand...

All they would be forced to do would be to make the issuance of and LTC (B) mandatory. They could still B ram and restrict given what we have seen come out of the court thus far.
 
cekim said:
The trouble is that these issues can take a generation or 4 to resolve... Once a bad decision is made by SCOTUS it can take 100 years to reverse... I have to agree with Terra - if they special case this, it will cost us dearly for decades to come.
Click to expand...

You're right, it's going to, but it will be more than we have now, and we can still challenge various aspects of the ruling through other Amendments, like the 4th amendment as you mentioned.

They have taking away our rights over time, it's going to take a long time to get them all back.

Though I'm hoping that SCOTUS in it's ruling does clearly define what the right actually means to those who can't read (our elected officials), and leaves room to challenge various state laws on the books.
 
terraformer said:
This is also not good. It signals the court is less interested in protecting rights than they are protecting the status quo.
...
The constitution is being pecked to death by modern technological convenience and made into a shadow of it's former self.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is the precise failure of the court for the past 150 years... It has failed at most every turn to protect and defend the constitution and concerned itself more with how to achieve its desired outcome than it has maintaining the balance of powers.

Gura dropped the ball if he let them get away with asking "what other rights might come into being"...

The answer is none. The only debate is what other rights would the government be prevented from infringing upon? The rights themselves do not come or go according to the enforcement of the law - only the infringement of them...
 
terraformer said:
This is also not good. It signals the court is less interested in protecting rights than they are protecting the status quo. That being anything not enumerated as a right becomes a privilege offered, taken away and controlled on whim by government to it's subjects. ie; You have a right to walk down the street without ID, but you can't drive without one. The constitution is being pecked to death by modern technological convenience and made into a shadow of it's former self.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS seldom if ever make ground shattering rulings, they prefer to find a way to rule on a case in a narrow meaning, restricting it to the matter at hand.

If they were to rule under P&I (as I wish they had) it would open the door to so many legal challenges based on rights, and they didn't want to play with that hornets nest, and I believe they used Gura's argument as an example to others who may try to use the same argument in some other fashion.
 
gjones77 said:
If they were to rule under P&I (as I wish they had) it would open the door to so many legal challenges based on rights, and they didn't want to play with that hornets nest, and I believe they used Gura's argument as an example to others who may try to use the same argument in some other fashion.
Click to expand...
True, but Gura should have made it clear to them that if these cases were inevitable, it is only because those rights are being abused today...

To prevent them from being heard by denying rights guaranteed by the Constitution as a matter of convenience by the court is disgusting...

Waiting for the transcript, but sounds to me like he was either being too polite or missed a golden opportunity to rub their noses in their on feces on such a stupid question...
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
You're exactly right. California is way out ahead of use on this and we should watch their cases closely as some appear directly applicable to our state.
Click to expand...
Doubtful. CA has no handgun ownership bans, unless the one in SF went through somehow. Anyone with a clean record can own a gun by default. If the court rules narrowly (which it probably will) there's no sword to wield in CA, unless another city tries to come up with a gun ban.

-Mike
 
cekim said:
Gura dropped the ball if he let them get away with asking "what other rights might come into being"...

The answer is none. The only debate is what other rights would the government be prevented from infringing upon? The rights themselves do not come or go according to the enforcement of the law - only the infringement of them...
Click to expand...

Too bad he didn't use that line of reasoning, it would of really put the Justices on the spot, it would of been seen as them taking away unenumerated rights (which it is)
 
Wow, just wow - Ginsburg's arguments WRT to Women's rights are stunning in their hypocrisy... I can see why Gura had a hard time responding without just saying "WTF? Are you seriously going to argue that position?" [sad2]
 
gjones77 said:
Too bad he didn't use that line of reasoning, it would of really put the Justices on the spot, it would of been seen as them taking away unenumerated rights (which it is)
Click to expand...
He got distracted in the legal minutia of that line of questioning and rambled on about 2 types of "rights". I would have let them challenge me on my statement that rights exist outside the Constitution - the debate is whether government is forced to respect them...

There certainly are "rights" granted explicitly (as he mentions, the civil rights act spells them out), but in the context of the bill of rights, most are rights "endowed by the creator" that the constitution protects rather than granted by the all powerful government.
 
So, the gist is that the court is not concerned about the right way - only the easy way... [sad2]

So, we continue a long tradition of ignoring the letter and intent of the 14th amendment for no better reason than "we want to"... [sad2]

To those who were angry at the court dividing the POI and Due process arguments - do you understand now why it was good to hedge the bet?

Oh and according to Ginsburg, since women didn't have the right to vote or own property if married, we should interpret the law assuming that... [thinking]

Nice going Ruth...

The common line of reasoning amongst "the 4" seems to be, if I can rephrase it, is "since we have failed to enforce the Constitution in other areas, we will here as well..."
 
Last edited:
I'd respectfully disagree. Sykes - while primarily concerned with concealed carry, may have implications for discretionary licensing - although we shouldn't need it post-McDonald. And Pena is an important case as it challenges the CA list of approved handguns.
 
Page 27 - Breyer is raising an argument explicitly shot down in Heller...

The idea that 2A guarantees the rights of militias is absurd on its face, but more importantly, now as a matter of law is not valid... [sad2]
 
gjones77 said:
I agree, people want to have a wide open ruling, and they're not going to get it.

The SCOTUS's job isn't to write law, it's to interpret it and the Constitution, and in this case they are probably going to keep their ruling narrow with regards that the 2A applies to all states, and that those states are allowed to have "reasonable" laws with regards to gun ownership.

I'm just hoping they define reasonable.
Click to expand...

They didn't define reasonable in Heller and they won't here. Ball-less wonders all of them.
 
cekim said:
The trouble is that these issues can take a generation or 4 to resolve... Once a bad decision is made by SCOTUS it can take 100 years to reverse... I have to agree with Terra - if they special case this, it will cost us dearly for decades to come.
Click to expand...

Or they can get a perfect opportunity to reverse a bad decision 137 years later and leave it lay there.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
I'd respectfully disagree. Sykes - while primarily concerned with concealed carry, may have implications for discretionary licensing - although we shouldn't need it post-McDonald. And Pena is an important case as it challenges the CA list of approved handguns.
Click to expand...

Who is this in response to? Lacking context.
 

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
172
gerrycaruso
gerrycaruso
Video: Female University of Chicago Student Disarms Would-Be Robber by Ejecting His Magazine
Replies
18
Views
396
Masswhole
Masswhole
Concealed Carrier Kills Alleged Robber in Chicago Shootout
Replies
3
Views
197
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
561
Reptile
Reptile
Back
Top Bottom