|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 29, 2009, 07:25 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 19, 2004
Posts: 492
|
Chicago appeal brief filed...
you can read it here.
And you should. It's good dope. With this and Nordyke, we're gonna get incorporation this term. That leaves only strict scrutiny, and our gun rights are as protected as our rights to speak and read. Which is as much as we could hope for, and far, far more than we thought we'd ever have, just two short years ago. We're winning. --Shannon |
January 29, 2009, 09:03 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
I listened to the Nordyke arguments, a week or so ago, and I heard nothing so compelling as what Mr. Gura submits here. I think this will be our incorporation.
Long live Alan Gura. |
January 29, 2009, 09:28 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 19, 2004
Posts: 492
|
Bear in mind that
in appellate cases, the written briefs constitute the bulk of the argument. So what you heard at orals was limited to whatever the judges didn't understand in the written filings, or wanted more clarification on, or wanted to trip up counsel.
It's the written briefs that have most of the meat. --Shannon |
January 30, 2009, 01:01 AM | #4 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I see where Gura's case and the NRA case have been consolidated. I'm glad to see that the NRA had sense enough to let Alan Gura write the brief.
|
January 30, 2009, 02:22 AM | #5 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
OK. I just finished reading the appellants' brief.
Textually, it says nothing different than what Gura said in his original briefs in Chicago and his amicus brief in Nordyke. Perceptually, is a different matter. This time around the arguments were forcefull and did not stray from the point at all. WHile giving credit to the NRA, where credit was due, he still seperates the McDonald arguments as being the better argument. And, he does it rather forcefully. Sooner or later, the courts, either at the Circuit level or the SCOTUS itself, is going to have to take another look at the Slaughterhouse cases. Gura makes that argument and gives the Circuit a way to do it. I doubt they will take the bait. Unlike the 9th Circuit, which seems not to really care if their decisions are overturned, the 7th Circuit cares a lot. The brief is compelling as well as impressive for its use of strong and forceful language. To use a phrase, it takes no prisoners. |
January 30, 2009, 09:48 AM | #6 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Everybody knows Slaughterhouse is questionable law. I think the Justices have known it for awhile but didn't address it because selective incorporation allowed for a slower integration process that wouldn't provoke mass disobedience during the civil rights era.
Now that practically all of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated, there isn't much value in the Slaughterhouse ruling anymore. I think Gura is holding out that chance to make history by overturning Slaughterhouse in order to get more votes. |
January 31, 2009, 08:29 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 21, 2007
Location: Western,WI
Posts: 243
|
I have had the brief sitting in an open tab for a couple days I think after Antipitas description I need to make some popcorn and read it.
__________________
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. - George Washington 1911s and V-twin sport bikes make me happy. |
January 31, 2009, 11:46 PM | #8 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
If there is one single case that stands out as an example of bad jurisprudence, Slaughterhouse is that case.
While there may be some confusion today over the phrase, "privileges and immunities," there was no confusion then. This was nothing more than a case where the Court refused to accept an amendment that changed the nature of federalism. Regardless, I think you're right Bart. Gura is looking for that touchstone case that rights a grievous wrong. |
February 1, 2009, 10:43 AM | #9 | |
Junior member
Join Date: May 4, 2007
Location: Meechigan
Posts: 492
|
Quote:
|
|
February 1, 2009, 01:15 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
|
|
February 1, 2009, 03:34 PM | #11 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
|
||
February 1, 2009, 03:58 PM | #12 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
Quote:
Quote:
While it would arguably be better to go back and right the Slaughterhouse wrongs, the courts have largely arrived at the same destination through selective Due Process incorporation. Selective incorporation is a well-worn path that SCOTUS will be loath to abandon for the potential unanticipated consequences of overturning Slaughterhouse. |
||
February 1, 2009, 07:38 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
". . . potential unanticipated consequences of overturning Slaughterhouse"
What might some of the unanticipated consequences be? Even if it meant wholesale incorporation of the bill of rights, how would that be a bad thing? |
February 1, 2009, 08:55 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|