-
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***
SCOTUS hears Chicago Case Megathread
- Thread starter Coyote Whiskey
- Start date
You're right, they didn't, and you're also right where as I doubt they will here.
They're going to leave that up to the states to decided "reasonable", and I'm sure many of those laws will be challenged as well.
I believe the idea is to allow the states at first, and then the judicial system to define reasonable over time.
That was a great oneNice one:
p39
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
drgrant's prior post...
Amazing that Breyer is still harping on "the militia clause"... [sad2]That was a great one
A clear sign of mental illness - obviously not suitable...
They sure did make Feldman squirm... I will give them that...
Honestly, I believe they probably made him sound better than he really was, in person he must of needed to change his draws after that pleading.
Interesting. Feldman never seemed to get a good point across. He really didn't have much to work with.
I have a lot of admiration for Mr. Gura. He didn't take the easy way through this and subjected himself to much more scrutiny from the court than had he argued due process.
I have a lot of admiration for Mr. Gura. He didn't take the easy way through this and subjected himself to much more scrutiny from the court than had he argued due process.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
But he didn't do the one thing he should have. When asked why the court should use PoI when it was easier to use DP, he just stammered he would be happy either way. If he had said, "Because it is the right thing to do to right the wrongs of the past" he would have gotten more respect from me. Had he said that most every activity as technology has developed has slid from right to privilege (walking v. driving, etc) as we have moved away in time from 1788 and that reinstating PoI would allow the courts to prevent the slide from continuing. He made no such pleas. To be respectful to the court for sure...
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
![[rofl2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/035.gif "ROFL2 [rofl2]")
Exactly...
IIRC, some of that was made clear in the briefing, but glossed over/lost in the orals...
Funny, that's exactly the advice Gura got from the Harvard Law faculty during the moot there.
What to bet Gura has clients who have been denied carry rights in the wings waiting to take the 'bear arms" part to SCOTUS?
Then the 'infringed' part?
He's sharp and I hope he's on a roll.
Then the 'infringed' part?
He's sharp and I hope he's on a roll.
What have you guys been following this case on, I haven't seen it on C-span or anything, do they have it live on the some website? What's the dillio?
The cases have already been filed:
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Sykes_v._McGinness
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Palmer_v._District_of_Columbia
Sykes has been continued pending resolution of Nordyke, which is pending resolution of McDonald. I'm not sure the exact status of Palmer; the calguns wiki isn't up to date.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
And he didn't take it... But I also see why he hedged. Scalia's ivory tower bit probably scared him. He shouldn't have allowed himself to be bullied. Plus, maybe that statement was what the court needed to justify a harder look.
scotusblog.com, volokh.com, and the transcript of the argument linked in post #134
Straw Poll:
Who thinks that a positive ruling on this case would help strike down our EEOPS list, the AG "list", B-Ramming, "Target & Hunting" restrictions?
Who thinks that a positive ruling on this case would help strike down our EEOPS list, the AG "list", B-Ramming, "Target & Hunting" restrictions?
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
In order, the AG "list", EEOPS list, B-Ramming, "Target & Hunting" with the AGs bull shit the most likely due to the lack of due process. You left off suitability which would be above all of those. The T&H restrictions are least likely to be effected.
The one important thing for MA that will come out of this is the overturning of Comm v Davies i.e. "An individual has no federal or state constitutiaonal or sttuotry right to possess or carry a firearm". This case is the underlying bedrock of MA firearms law. The state could avoid having this tested by just giving in to anyone that was not statutory disqualified.
Heller seems to imply that the "lists" might not pass muster. The Pena case in CA is asking this exact question. If it is successful, we may have a great precedent to access here.
None of the above. The only thing it will do in the long run is either make LTC-B's "shall issue" or bring back the provision that allows you to purchase a handgun on an FID card and keep it at home.
-Mike
Er, none of the above. A positive decision, after litigation, might force Class B issuing to be shall issue. The rest? That would be argued as "reasonable regulations."
I'd say shall issue restricted-As, assuming they incorporate under the same standard in Heller. High capacity handguns are most definitely 'in common use'.
Pena and Sykes are when it gets really interesting.
I think the book-makers already have 1:1 odds on that
C'mon go out on a limb...
I know, should have used an emotocon.
Sometimes the court beats the hell out of the guy they are going to agree with on a 5:4 basis too... They want to shake out all the bugs before they go behind closed doors and brow beat the swing vote...
This seemed like more than that to me, but I am far from an expert - just a fan...
That "in common use" nonsense really gets me... There are 100's of thousands of full-auto M16/M4's a pantload of 240's, a good number of M2's, etc... Then there is the police - they have patrol rifles, MP5's grenade launchers...
When you get right down to it - most CCW'd guns aren't getting "used" as "weapons" either. They are just guns until that unlucky day...
So, should we look to the gang world and stick with the variety of guns they are using?
Liberal anti-logic non-sense trying to pussy-foot around the whole reason for 2A which was to provide the final check to government abuse in the same manner that the founders had just checked their own (prior) government. Any other explanation is either ignorant of history or delusional.
Similar threads
