PDA

View Full Version : Chicago Incorporation Case Filings


hoffmang
08-01-2008, 2:30 PM
Alan Gura and company filed their motion for summary judgment (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/chicago_summary_judgment_brief.pdf). Basically they have stated that there are no facts in dispute and the case is only about whether the 2nd Amendment applies to Chicago because if it does, Chicago's handgun ban and registration scheme fail any level of scrutiny. The argument is clear enough for non legal folks to read and understand the legal and historical background to incorporation. These are the 4 cases that matter to incorporation and are heavily referenced in Gura's argument:
Slaughterhouse Cases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases)
US v. Cruikshank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank) (The Colfax Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colfax_massacre))
Presser v. Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois)
Miller v. Texas (http://supreme.justia.com/us/153/535/case.html)

The judge the received is a stickler for Federal Rules of Civil Procedure so in the more amusing and inside pool category is their motion to strike (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/motion_to_strike_answer.pdf) quite a few parts of the City's answer to the complaint. The bottom line is that the City claimed it was either too dumb or too lazy to find the denied firearms permits it surely has. Gura and team were happy to provide them copies of their own letters...

-Gene

IGOTDIRT4U
08-01-2008, 2:34 PM
Wow! Some great moves. I wonder if the Judge will issue a bench decision or move it to prelims. How's his record?

Liberty1
08-01-2008, 3:30 PM
Commentary (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/08/movement_on_chi.php) from David Hardy's "Of Arms and the Law" on McDonald v Chicago and Gura's latest motion.

bulgron
08-01-2008, 3:32 PM
That filing has some interesting language. If it stands up in court, I wonder if this won't be helpful in doing something about the safe handgun list:


Whatever the value of registration, the requirement that guns be constantly re-registered burdens gun ownership but serves no useful purpose. The city already mandates that registrants immediately notify police of any changes in their registration information, including loss or disposition of a gun or registration certificate. .... Moreover, “[a] state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” .... The penalty for lapsed or improper registration rendering the subject firearm “unregisterable” is likewise unconstitutional.


As you know, every year a handgun must be re-listed on the safe handgun list (for a price) or it falls off the list and immediately becomes "unsafe."

While the argument in the Chicago case speaks to a burden placed on individuals, while the safe handgun list is (at least, on the surface) a burden on manufacturers, I have to think that if this argument flies in Illinois, then it provides a decent step up for attacking our own little problem here in California.

I am not a lawyer. What do you guys think, am I right or am I wrong? :D

Rascal
08-01-2008, 4:22 PM
Commentary (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/08/movement_on_chi.php) from David Hardy's "Of Arms and the Law" on McDonald v Chicago and Gura's latest motion.


Link no worky worky. :(

thedrickel
08-01-2008, 4:25 PM
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/08/movement_on_chi.php

Liberty1
08-01-2008, 4:39 PM
Link no worky worky. :( fixed:)

Shotgun Man
08-01-2008, 5:45 PM
Is Chicago's answer to the complaint online?

hoffmang
08-02-2008, 2:28 PM
The interim filings including the City's original answer are here:
http://www.chicagoguncase.com/2008/07/31/first-month-update/#more-152

The City hasn't answered the two filings up in my first post.

I'm not so sure I agree with Dave Hardy on this case's chances. I'm thinking its 50%-50% at the district court and 70%-30% that the court of appeals incorporates.

However, even if we lose in that circuit I'm giving us about 90% odds of incorporation in the 9th Circuit. If we win both we have less of a chance of a quick Supreme Court ruling which would set incorporation in stone.

I'll reach out to a couple of folks to see if I'm off base on the odds I was expecting in Chicago.

-Gene

Shotgun Man
08-02-2008, 2:37 PM
The interim filings including the City's original answer are here:
http://www.chicagoguncase.com/2008/07/31/first-month-update/#more-152

The City hasn't answered the two filings up in my first post.

I'm not so sure I agree with Dave Hardy on this case's chances. I'm thinking its 50%-50% at the district court and 70%-30% that the court of appeals incorporates.

However, even if we lose in that circuit I'm giving us about 90% odds of incorporation in the 9th Circuit. If we win both we have less of a chance of a quick Supreme Court ruling which would set incorporation in stone.

I'll reach out to a couple of folks to see if I'm off base on the odds I was expecting in Chicago.

-Gene


Thanks for that. I looked before but didn't find it. The answer contains no legal argument, just a denial. Is that common in civil litigation? I can see not wanting to tip your hand too soon.

Although the government is capable of anything, for them to argue non-incorporation strips them of any credibility. I think Chicago's circuit or any other will incorporate.

Gray Peterson
08-02-2008, 3:18 PM
This is typical, but if it's abused then it becomes an issue.

Also, I think the chances of incorporation by the lower courts in the 7th Circuit will depend on how the 9th Circuit's "gun panel" treats the incorporation issue. If the 9th Circuit incorporates, then it'll be hard for the 7th circuit to ignore it or any others for that matter. If they do something stupid and ignore an "incorporation" decision, from the 9th, it'll cause a circuit split that we need to get this up to SCOTUS again quickly.

-Lonnie

Shotgun Man
08-02-2008, 3:34 PM
This is typical, but if it's abused then it becomes an issue.

Also, I think the chances of incorporation by the lower courts in the 7th Circuit will depend on how the 9th Circuit's "gun panel" treats the incorporation issue. If the 9th Circuit incorporates, then it'll be hard for the 7th circuit to ignore it or any others for that matter. If they do something stupid and ignore an "incorporation" decision, from the 9th, it'll cause a circuit split that we need to get this up to SCOTUS again quickly.

-Lonnie

Do you believe that the 9th circuit would necessarily decide the issue before the 7th circuit? If so, why?

ke6guj
08-02-2008, 3:47 PM
Do you believe that the 9th circuit would necessarily decide the issue before the 7th circuit? If so, why?

Because we currently have a case before the 9th right now, Nordyke, the Alameda Gun Show case. The panel has been set (looks to be pro-2nd, per prior rulings) and arguements could be heard in the next 2-3 months with a ruling in another 2-3 months. So, in 6 months, we could have our incorporation ruling. Any new suits, such as Chicago or SF are 1-2 years away from a circuit incorporation ruling.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=111557&highlight=nordyke

hoffmang
08-02-2008, 3:50 PM
The City's answer is quite common except for where they were stretching the truth (can they seriously say they have no record of denied permits?)

Nordyke is in front of an appellate panel of the 9th Circuit and thus quite a few steps ahead in the legal process calendar/time wise.

McDonald is still in the district court and the other side isn't scheduled to file an answer/reply to the motion for summary judgment yet, so its got many months to go before its appealable to the 7th Circuit by either side. Someone has to lose first.

-Gene

bulgron
08-02-2008, 3:51 PM
However, even if we lose in that circuit I'm giving us about 90% odds of incorporation in the 9th Circuit. If we win both we have less of a chance of a quick Supreme Court ruling which would set incorporation in stone.

I have trouble believing any circuit court will deny incorporation, but then I'm one of those hopelessly naive people who thinks that the courts should operate on logic and intellectual honesty instead of political ideology.

Gator Monroe
08-02-2008, 9:08 PM
This is fun !:)

AEC1
08-02-2008, 9:25 PM
I know the idea and process. But am I the only one that finds it insulting to have to have a court tell me that the bill of rights applies to me?

hoffmang
08-02-2008, 11:31 PM
I know the idea and process. But am I the only one that finds it insulting to have to have a court tell me that the bill of rights applies to me?

The civil libertarian in me agrees, but the historian in me understands that the bill of rights was written to protect us against the Federal Government and not the States.

That said, it was a chapter almost as dark as Scott v. Sanford in SCOTUS history when they let a bunch of white supremacists get away with murdering about 50 black men - many of whom were the elected judges and LEO's of the Colfax Louisiana - while saying that the Second Amendment didn't apply to "non state" or state activity in Cruikshank.

-Gene

BillCA
08-03-2008, 1:32 AM
:lurk5: