PDA

View Full Version : Chicago Files its response in NRA/McDonald


hoffmang
04-18-2009, 1:16 PM
Chicago filed its response (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/appellees_brief_mcdonald.pdf) in the NRA & McDonald v. Chicago & Oak Park cases. Posting from Alan Gura here (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/2009/04/17/city-files-brief/).

The brief is well written but poorly argued.

Highlights:
Chicago can ban handguns because long arms are allowed.
Even though its an individual right, its really a militia state right.
We can ban pretty much any arm as long as some arm is still there.
It's not fundamental. The word fundamental isn't in Heller.
Handguns are "dangerous and unusual"
Rifles are the far superior defense tool in urban environments! (I love this one!)
The English right to arms was limited so therefor shall not be infringed means we can infringe all we want.
Stevens' dissent was right even though he only got 4 votes...
What 14th Amendment? I mean, they didn't really mean that black people should have the right to have and use rifles and handguns to defend themselves.

It's about the best argument I've see against incroporation but it's not all that strong.

-Gene

xLusi0n
04-18-2009, 1:20 PM
I'm not too skooled on arguments for the 2A, but playing the devil's advocate, I always thought that even if CA incorporated the 2A, they could interpret it that way and say as long as they let Californians keep SOME guns, then it's ok to ban others. So, for example, let shotguns and bolt action rifles be legal, ban all others...

I obviously don't agree, but think that CA could interpret it that way.

hoffmang
04-18-2009, 1:26 PM
I'm not too skooled on arguments for the 2A, but playing the devil's advocate, I always thought that even if CA incorporated the 2A, they could interpret it that way and say as long as they let Californians keep SOME guns, then it's ok to ban others. So, for example, let shotguns and bolt action rifles be legal, ban all others...


Heller makes it plain that as long as an arm is not "dangerous and unusual" (Pen gun, SBS, Machine Gun) and is commonly owned for lawful purposes, it can't be banned.

The State will not Incorporate. Federal Courts will Incorporate against the states and the Federal Courts will drive the interpretation of the 2A as incorporated via 14A. Heller in turn drives the Federal Courts.

-Gene

CCWFacts
04-18-2009, 1:53 PM
Chicago can ban handguns because long arms are allowed.

That's cool. So the one particular, individual firearm which Heller protected (Mr. Heller's revolver) is not protected by Heller. Yeah!

Even though its an individual right, its really a militia state right.

Well, I do like the idea that it's both an individual and a state right.

We can ban pretty much any arm as long as some arm is still there.

Never mind the "dangerous and unusual" phrase in Heller.

It's not fundamental. The word fundamental isn't in Heller.

Right, I mean, if it were fundamental, it would have been listed in the BoR. And it would have had language like "shall not be infringed", without placing any limitations on who could infringe it.

Handguns are "dangerous and unusual"

Yeah, that's why Heller didn't protect their ownership?

Rifles are the far superior defense tool in urban environments! (I love this one!)

Ok, can I register an M4? It's commonly used for urban defense, just not in the US. It's far superior to a handgun.

The English right to arms was limited so therefor shall not be infringed means we can infringe all we want.

All rights are limited!

What 14th Amendment? I mean, they didn't really mean that black people should have the right to have and use rifles and handguns to defend themselves.

And that is the crux of it. "Cruikshank was right! It's ok to massacre blacks!"

BillCA
04-18-2009, 4:17 PM
I managed to get halfway through this and stopped. Not because their arguments were that bad, but because the attitude of Illinois and Chicago shown through like standing in front of a dozen police(state) spotlights.


From what I saw...

Chicago stands on Presser and Cruikshank.
Presser and Cruikshank are valid, no matter how poorly decided.
Only SCOTUS can reverse it's own prior decisions in Presser & Cruikshank. So deny and let the NRA appeal to SCOTUS.
Just because the 2A was put in the Bill Of Rights (in 1788) doesn't mean it protects a fundamental personal liberty interest within the meaning of the 14th Amendment (written in 1868).

Even though the 2A confers an individual right, it's scope is really only to prevent federal disarmament of the state militias.

History of the right doesn't show a deeply rooted right to any particular category of firearms, must less a specific right to handguns. Perhaps because our forefathers considered them as a single category of "arms" and treated them more or less equally.
Under the operative test of "Ordered liberty" states should be free to decide that the right to possess handguns - the type of weapon most repsonsible for homicide, suicides and other armed violence - is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. In other words, a state can ignore any other state's interpretation and ban guns used in crimes, like handguns. One can suppose at some future date that when rifles and shotguns impose this burden, they too can be banned.

Claims that a due-process analysis allows states to assess the cost/benefits of handguns and that because Chicago allows other (long) guns for self-defense - "there can be no serious claim that merely because a weapon in common use was protected at the time the Constitution was ratified, such a weapon cannot be banned today." Unless we substitute "the right to free speech" or "right to worship" for "a weapon".

Now you can see why I stopped reading.

wilit
04-18-2009, 4:36 PM
Highlights:

The English right to arms was limited so therefor shall not be infringed means we can infringe all we want.


-Gene

Seems to me someone should actually read the English Bill of Rights and the US Bill of Rights and compare the two.

Let's look at the US BOR first.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And the English BOR.
Freedom for Protestants to bear arms for their own defence, as suitable to their class and as allowed by law.

It seems to me there are some major FUNDAMENTAL differences between the two.

bondmid003
04-18-2009, 4:58 PM
We probably should just wait for this to pan out but me thinks Chicago is going to lose this one

lioneaglegriffin
04-18-2009, 5:02 PM
Rifles are the far superior defense tool in urban environments! (I love this one!)


-Gene

they could have at least said shotguns. yea but what do you expect.
same sh*t different day

kermit315
04-18-2009, 5:44 PM
I managed to get halfway through this and stopped. Not because their arguments were that bad, but because the attitude of Illinois and Chicago shown through like standing in front of a dozen police(state) spotlights.


From what I saw...

Chicago stands on Presser and Cruikshank.
Presser and Cruikshank are valid, no matter how poorly decided.
Only SCOTUS can reverse it's own prior decisions in Presser & Cruikshank. So deny and let the NRA appeal to SCOTUS.
Just because the 2A was put in the Bill Of Rights (in 1788) doesn't mean it protects a fundamental personal liberty interest within the meaning of the 14th Amendment (written in 1868).

Even though the 2A confers an individual right, it's scope is really only to prevent federal disarmament of the state militias.

History of the right doesn't show a deeply rooted right to any particular category of firearms, must less a specific right to handguns. Perhaps because our forefathers considered them as a single category of "arms" and treated them more or less equally.
Under the operative test of "Ordered liberty" states should be free to decide that the right to possess handguns - the type of weapon most repsonsible for homicide, suicides and other armed violence - is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. In other words, a state can ignore any other state's interpretation and ban guns used in crimes, like handguns. One can suppose at some future date that when rifles and shotguns impose this burden, they too can be banned.

Claims that a due-process analysis allows states to assess the cost/benefits of handguns and that because Chicago allows other (long) guns for self-defense - "there can be no serious claim that merely because a weapon in common use was protected at the time the Constitution was ratified, such a weapon cannot be banned today." Unless we substitute "the right to free speech" or "right to worship" for "a weapon".

Now you can see why I stopped reading.


Illinois isnt the problem, Chicago is.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
04-18-2009, 5:58 PM
hoffmang, in Heller there are four court decisions cited after "dangerous and unusual" is quoted, have you looked them up?

KylaGWolf
04-18-2009, 6:04 PM
Gene if I read what Chicago was saying they are basically saying that british law should have precedence by comparing our BOA to theirs? And reading some of their other points I almost think that their lawyers were doing some heavy duty illegal substances when they came up with that drivel. Really makes me wonder if they are serious in filing that motion or if they are just doing it to make it look like they are fighting when they are just wasting more money.

niceguy
04-18-2009, 6:30 PM
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

... a free state. Well, since there are no free states after 1865, I guess there's no need for arms of any type... so can the whole sheebam and call it a day.

I see very little about the 2nd being in place to enable the populace to reject the government when it deems it necessary in order to secure its own liberties.

When the time comes to resist, what are people supposed to do? ASK the government for permission to use effective arms?

yellowfin
04-18-2009, 6:49 PM
Of particular note in the English law citation is the "as suitable to their class" phrase, establishing different levels of treatment under the law. Sounds a lot like "separate but equal" doesn't it?

elenius
04-18-2009, 7:02 PM
Chicago stands on Presser and Cruikshank.
Presser and Cruikshank are valid, no matter how poorly decided.
Only SCOTUS can reverse it's own prior decisions in Presser & Cruikshank. So deny and let the NRA appeal to SCOTUS.


Aren't they right about this part? Can the district court overturn SCOTUS precedent? And wouldn't it be better for us if Chicago wins this round and we can appeal to SCOTUS to get incorporation at the SCOTUS level?

DDT
04-18-2009, 7:14 PM
Aren't they right about this part? Can the district court overturn SCOTUS precedent? And wouldn't it be better for us if Chicago wins this round and we can appeal to SCOTUS to get incorporation at the SCOTUS level?

Not really, F them. The courts should do the right thing and incorporate. If Chicago doesn't like it THEY can appeal.

elenius
04-18-2009, 7:44 PM
Not really, F them. The courts should do the right thing and incorporate. If Chicago doesn't like it THEY can appeal.

Yeah, but if they don't, then our victory won't be as decisive. I don't know if they are stupid enough to appeal to SCOTUS, where they should expect to lose.

hoffmang
04-18-2009, 7:59 PM
Aren't they right about this part? Can the district court overturn SCOTUS precedent? And wouldn't it be better for us if Chicago wins this round and we can appeal to SCOTUS to get incorporation at the SCOTUS level?

Heller is just the type of substantive change in the law that requires the courts to perform the Duncan analysis. That means that it doesn't really matter what happened in Quilici or Presser because Heller changed the law and neither previous case performed the required Duncan analysis.

-Gene

nick
04-18-2009, 8:47 PM
Freedom for Protestants to bear arms for their own defence, as suitable to their class and as allowed by law.

I know that's not going to happen, but I wish someone (as in a journalist, or someone near them at some televized event) asked them which class they consider themselves to be a part of, and which class they assign to the rest of us.

They sure do act like modern-day aristoracy (at least, in their bad traits, they seem to be leaving the good sids of aristocracy out). Having been raised as part of the old one, I can tell.

7x57
04-18-2009, 8:51 PM
And reading some of their other points I almost think that their lawyers were doing some heavy duty illegal substances when they came up with that drivel. Really makes me wonder if they are serious in filing that motion or if they are just doing it to make it look like they are fighting when they are just wasting more money.

Oh, I'm sure they are serious, they are being paid a lot of money to be very, very serious indeed. Chicago has a poor hand and they know it, but they are also fighting God's Fight (because God is, of course, against guns, limited government, Original Meaning, and Republicans). So the only logical choice is to pay the best lawyers the money of the taxpayers of Chicago can buy to play out that poor hand as best as can possibly be played.

'Cuz, you know, a kitten dies every time a gun is fired or purchased. It's worth every penny of other people's money to fight that kind of Evil.

7x57

nick
04-18-2009, 8:52 PM
Gene if I read what Chicago was saying they are basically saying that british law should have precedence by comparing our BOA to theirs? And reading some of their other points I almost think that their lawyers were doing some heavy duty illegal substances when they came up with that drivel. Really makes me wonder if they are serious in filing that motion or if they are just doing it to make it look like they are fighting when they are just wasting more money.

British law was heavily utilized in drafting our own legal system, and right or wrong, it's still often used in evaluating the intent of the Founding Fathers. That being said, the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land, and not the British law.

sigsauer887
04-18-2009, 8:52 PM
But when I read the Heller brief, one of the dissenting judges said that the Handgun is the most protected since its perfect for home defense as you can use one hand for the firearm and the second to dial 911. SO what the hell are these libtards talking about? Do they not know how to read?

Jpach
04-18-2009, 8:53 PM
The brief is well written but poorly argued.

Highlights:
Rifles are the far superior defense tool in urban environments! (I love this one!)
The English right to arms was limited so therefor shall not be infringed means we can infringe all we want.
Stevens' dissent was right even though he only got 4 votes...
What 14th Amendment? I mean, they didn't really mean that black people should have the right to have and use rifles and handguns to defend themselves.

It's about the best argument I've see against incroporation but it's not all that strong.

-Gene

Wait...havent we declared independence from England?

nick
04-18-2009, 8:55 PM
'Cuz, you know, a kitten dies every time a gun is fired or purchased. It's worth every penny of other people's money to fight that kind of Evil.

7x57


Thanks a bunch, I feel like a mass-murderer now. in which exact area do kittens die when one fires a gun though? I think, I solved a feral cat problem in a small city today.

nick
04-18-2009, 8:56 PM
Wait...havent we declared independence from England?

It was a plot to ensure that you can't appeal to the Queen when new taxes are levied. In reality we're still more or less loyal subjects, I'm just not sure of whom.

7x57
04-18-2009, 9:22 PM
Thanks a bunch, I feel like a mass-murderer now.


Well, I demilled a Romy parts kit today at the Thousand Oaks demil party, and as that is part of the process of acquiring a new firearm that surely killed some kitties. And there is an evil factor multiplier as well, normalized to "1" for single-shot single-action .22 boy's rifles such as the Scouts use (yes, even just adding the self-cocking feature increases the factor, 'cuz it increases the potential rate of fire). The AK seems to be the single most scary, most evil rifle in the world, so with such a large multiplier I'm sure I killed a lot of poor kitties today too.


in which exact area do kittens die when one fires a gun though? I think, I solved a feral cat problem in a small city today.

That's an excellent question. I'm not sure if anyone has done a study of the action-at-a-distance involved. My guess is that there is a kind of wave-function surrounding the heinous act, perhaps with a bell-curve like shape. So closer kitties are more likely to die, but it could be one very far away.

No, sorry, thinking like a techie not an anti. Clearly the cat that dies is the one most loved by the most heart-tugging owner in all the world. So in practice, the cats that die belong to crippled little girls, lonely monks with a vow of silence, starving children in Bangladesh, and so on.

7x57

hoffmang
04-18-2009, 9:27 PM
hoffmang, in Heller there are four court decisions cited after "dangerous and unusual" is quoted, have you looked them up?

Here are all the referenced documents regarding "dangerous and unusual" in Heller.

Brief of the United States in Miller (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/us-miller-brief.pdf)
US v. Miller (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZS.html)
Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154 (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/aymette_v_state.txt)

The actual 4 cases:

State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824)

The principals ascertained in these cases show beyond a doubt, that this indictment is maintainable, for in it is laid an actual and violent breach of the peace, which does not require the aid of the words "with strong hand," and such a breach of the peace as it set forth in those indictments in 3 Burr. they would not have been quashed. These men were armed with guns, which they fired at the house of an unprotected female, thus exciting her alarm for the safety of her person and her property. This is the corpus delicti; the killing the dog is laid as a matter of aggravation, and to show the temper of mind by which the defendants were impelled; it would have been, therefore, quite superfluous to state any ownership in the dog. If any doubt can exist that the offence so charged amounts to a breach of the peace, it will be removed by what is said by Sergeant Hawkins in a passage deriving additional authority by being transcribed by that judicious writer Dr. Burns, into his book on Justices of the Peace, title "Affray." "Although no bare words in the judgment of law carry in them so much terror as to amount to an affray yet it seems certain there may be an affray when there is no actual violence: as when a man arms himself with dangerous and unusual weapons, in such a manner as will naturally cause a terror to the people; which is said always to have been an offence at common law, and is strictly prohibited by statute." (1 Hawkins 136.) On these reasons and authorities, I think the judgment must be reversed.


O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849)

DARGAN, J.--An affray is the fighting of two or more persons in some public place, but no quarrelsome words merely, will constitute this offence.--1 Russell 271; Archb. Cr. Pl. 564; 1 Hawk. Pl. 135; [Simpson v. State] 5 Yer. 356. It is probable, however, that if persons arm themselves with deadly or unusual weapons for the purpose of an affray, and in such manner as to strike terror to the people, they may be guilty of this offence, without coming to actual blows.--1 Russell 271. Yet no authority goes so far as to hold that mere vulgar or low abuse, can constitute this offence. We think, therefore, that the court erred in refusing the charge requested, that mere words would not constitute an affray, and also in charging, that if one used insulting language to another, in consequence of which, the person insulted attacks the one insulting him, the party attacked is guilty of an affray, whether he resisted the attack or not.

Let the judgment be reversed and the cause remanded.


English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871)

The article reads as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Arms of what kind? Certainly such as are useful and proper to an armed militia. The deadly weapons spoken of in the statute are pistols, dirks, daggers, slingshots, sword canes, spears, brass knuckles and bowie knives. ...

To refer the deadly devices and instruments called in the statute "deadly weapons," to the proper or necessary arms of a "well regulated militia," is simply ridiculous. No kind of travesty, however subtle or ingenious, could so misconstrue this provision of the Constitution of the United States, as to make it cover and protect that pernicious vice, from which so many murders, assassinations, and deadly assaults have sprung, and which it was doubtless the intention of the Leg-islature to punish and prohibit. The word "arms" in the connection we find it in the Constitution of the United States, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols and carbine; of the artillery, the field piece, siege gun, and mortar, with side arms.

The terms dirks, daggers, slingshots, sword canes, brass knuckles and bowie knives, belong to no military vo-cabulary. Were a soldier on duty found with any of these things about his person, he would be punished for an offense against discipline.

The act referred to makes all necessary exceptions, and points out the place, the time and the manner in which certain deadly weapons may be carried as means of self defense, and these exceptional cases, in our judgment, fully cover all the wants of society. There is no abridgment of the personal rights, such as may be regarded as inherent and inalienable to man, nor do we think his political rights are in the least infringed by any part of this law.


State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874)

SETTLE, J. The elementary writers say that the offence of going armed with dangerous or unusual weapons is a crime against the public peace by terrifying the good people of the land, and this Court has declared the same to be the common law in State v. Huntley, 3 Ired. 418. It is evident that the indictment before us was drawn upon the assumption that the facts in the case would bring it within the spirit of this offence. Only two witnesses were examined upon the trial, both on behalf of the State. One of them testified that he was in the sheriff's room, on the side of the passage of the court room, and heard an unusual noise, when he opened the door and [**2] ran out and saw the defendant on horseback passing out of the north door of the passage of the court house. This was after Court had adjourned in the evening. That the defendant was preparing to ride in again, when he was met and stopped by the sheriff, and he then rode off. From the noise, the witness judged that he rode through the passage of the court house in a canter. Witness thought the defendant was drunk, but had no reason for so thinking except that he would not have ridden through the court house if he had been sober. Witness also swore that he saw a good many persons in the street near enough to have heard the noise occasioned by riding through the passage. ...

His Honor instructed the jury that if they believed the testimony of either one of the witnesses, they must return a verdict of guilty.

While this was very bad behavior by the defendant, we cannot say, as a conclusion of law, that the evidence makes him guilty of a criminal offence.
In this case we attach no importance to the fact that the defendant had no arms, for we think it may be conceded that the driving or riding without arms through a court house or a crowded street at such a rate or in such a manner as to endan-ger the safety of the inhabitants amounts to a breach of the peace and is an indictable offence at common law. United States v. Hart, 1 Pet. C.C.R. 390.

But does the proof in this case sustains the allegations of the indictment?
We conceive that the riding through a court house or a street at 12 o'clock at night, when no one is present, is a very different thing from riding through at 12 o'clock in the day, when the court house or street is full of people.

The same act may be criminal or innocent, according to the surrounding circumstances. Here it seems, according to both witnesses, that only they and the sheriff were actually present, though one witness stated that he saw a good many persons in the street near enough to have heard the noise.
We think his Honor should have left it to the jury to say whether under all the circumstances the defendant was guilty or not guilty.

There is error, which entitles the defendant to a venire de novo.


-Gene

colossians323
04-18-2009, 9:52 PM
hoffmang, in Heller there are four court decisions cited after "dangerous and unusual" is quoted, have you looked them up?

Your move!:lurk5:

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
04-18-2009, 10:55 PM
Your move!:lurk5:


From my recollection, I think 3 out of 4 of the cases say "dangerous or unusual", not "dangerous and unusual." If you say there is a historical tradition of regulating dangerous and unusual weapons, that could mean there is a historical tradition of regulating dangerous weapons and unusual weapons, or it could mean there is a historical tradition of regulating weapons that are both dangerous and unusual. If you want to argue that Heller means the latter it doesn't help that 3 of the 4 examples cited say dangerous or unusual.

When Heller was published my reaction was, is there any gun regulation Scalia doesn't like other than total bans on handguns and possibly open carry restrictions? I'm not so certain about the argument that you can't regulate a firearm unless it's both dangerous and unusual, and not to be picky but Chicago isn't arguing that handguns are dangerous and unusual, just dangerous. Plus, I don't think Scalia was articulating a legal standard when he observed that there is a historical tradition of regulating dangerous and unusual weapons. It will be interesting to see what happens if and when the courts deal with this issue.

hoffmang
04-18-2009, 11:15 PM
You face an uphill argument if you don't see Scalia saying that handguns are common and protected while e.g. pen guns may be both dangerous and unusual. Also, something very, very important is that Scalia said that there was a "historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

Possession isn't carrying.

-Gene

yellowfin
04-18-2009, 11:52 PM
^ It is dangerous, however, that he stated that in such a way as to be close enough to readily distort into being useful for attacking carry rights. The unscrupulous, which of course includes the entire ranks of our opponents, would handily take that quickly and say "See! The overwhelming historical context prohibits carry of weapons, and Scalia said that's ok!" They get away with using far more egregious distortions, deliberate misquotations, and half truths than that on a regular basis.

jdberger
04-19-2009, 12:36 AM
I've always been a fan of the "2nd Amendment is a State RIght" argument.

One of the better explorations of this argument was done by Glenn Reynolds and Don Kates. (http://www.guncite.com/journals/rk-exp.html)

In light of comments made by the States of Texas and Montana re secession - comments like these are amusing.

Moreover, under the states' right view, the Second Amendment guarantees a vastly greater range of weaponry (to state-authorized civilians or to the states themselves) than is implied by the individual right view. Exponents of the latter view have been at some pains to show that the Amendment extends to small arms only. Warships, tanks, artillery, missiles, atomic bombs, and so forth are excluded from its guarantee for several reasons, including the Amendment's text,[56] the history of the common law (p.1757)right to arms,[57] and the logic of the individual right position.[58]

Of course, none of the limitations implicit in the individual right view applies to the states' right view because the common law imposed no limitations on the kinds of arms the government might possess. If the incongruity of the Amendment describing a state as "bearing" arms can be ignored, which the states' right view necessarily does, a state is obviously no more incapable of "bearing" cannon than any other kind of arms. Moreover, if the purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the existence of state military forces that can serve as "a military counterpoint to the regular standing army,"[59] the arms it guarantees the states logically could include even the most destructive implements of modern war. However unsettling these results may be, they inevitably result from the Antifederalist critique of the original Constitution upon which proponents of the states' right view rely.

I wonder if this is what Chicago is really shooting for? Their own Navy?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
04-19-2009, 6:19 AM
You face an uphill argument if you don't see Scalia saying that handguns are common and protected while e.g. pen guns may be both dangerous and unusual. Also, something very, very important is that Scalia said that there was a "historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

Possession isn't carrying.

-Gene

No doubt handgun bans are an uphill argument after Heller. I'm thinking of regulations on other "dangerous" firearms.

Possession isn't carrying. But the dangerous and unusual quote comes right in the middle of the section where Scalia is talking about all the restrictions on "keeping and carrying" that he thinks are ok. He lumps possession and carrying together and the dangerous and unusual quote is meant to illustrate the point that the second amendment right is "not unlimited."

I think the most interesting second amendment argument is going to be "you can't regulate my dangerous firearm because it is not unusual."

hoffmang
04-19-2009, 9:38 AM
I think the most interesting second amendment argument is going to be "you can't regulate my dangerous firearm because it is not unusual."

That argument is already being made in Hanson. The other side certainly likes to read "or" into that line.

-Gene

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
04-19-2009, 1:01 PM
That argument is already being made in Hanson. The other side certainly likes to read "or" into that line.

Is there a link to an opposition brief in that case? Thanks.

hoffmang
04-19-2009, 2:44 PM
Is there a link to an opposition brief in that case? Thanks.

DC's deadline is 4/21 I believe though I expect they'll ask for more time. Not sure that they'll get it. Suffice it to say that as soon as their is an opposition to the MSJ, I'll post it.

-Gene

kermit
04-19-2009, 10:20 PM
Handguns are "dangerous and unusual"
Rifles are the far superior defense tool in urban environments!

Wait a minute! What is the average Chicago LEO carrying? Certainly they can't be carrying anything that's "dangerous and unusual" :confused:
Don't tell me they've switched to SMG like some of the European cops.
(Although if it makes me able to get a full auto MP-5 for urban defense, I'll drink that Kool-aid!:43:)
Lots of intersteing 2A cases playing out in America.

kermit315
04-19-2009, 10:48 PM
man, hears that kermit guy again, going and making sense.

I am starting to like you...


:D

calixt0
04-19-2009, 11:38 PM
what I don't get is if we look back at history these men who wrote or are about to write the constitution along with the bill of rights either just went through a war or were about to go through a war where many of the combatants were the average townfolks with weapons of their own who fought. yet the right to keep and bear arms is only for state militias.

secondly If as the 2a states specifically to protect against tyrancial rule if the government or state can limit what is given how can the average citizen group overthrough a tyranical leadership. Lets say for example either state or the federal gov't decides we are no longer allowing anything but single shot rifles.... then they decide that thay they aren't going to have elections anymore and those in power are going to stay inpower. how are the people who have only single shot rifles going to protect angainst such tyranical rule? they have taken our ability to defend ourselves even against the state or govt itself. my way of thinking if I can afford it I should be able to by it. be it an ambrahms tank or a f22 fighter or a full saw. full auto and all.


I know most of you here agree with most of this, but does anyone know the arguments that the courts are using to uphold this obviously sketchy situation?

lioneaglegriffin
04-20-2009, 9:10 AM
what I don't get is if we look back at history these men who wrote or are about to write the constitution along with the bill of rights either just went through a war or were about to go through a war where many of the combatants were the average townfolks with weapons of their own who fought. yet the right to keep and bear arms is only for state militias.

secondly If as the 2a states specifically to protect against tyrancial rule if the government or state can limit what is given how can the average citizen group overthrough a tyranical leadership. Lets say for example either state or the federal gov't decides we are no longer allowing anything but single shot rifles.... then they decide that thay they aren't going to have elections anymore and those in power are going to stay inpower. how are the people who have only single shot rifles going to protect angainst such tyranical rule? they have taken our ability to defend ourselves even against the state or govt itself. my way of thinking if I can afford it I should be able to by it. be it an ambrahms tank or a f22 fighter or a full saw. full auto and all.


I know most of you here agree with most of this, but does anyone know the arguments that the courts are using to uphold this obviously sketchy situation?

they'd probably be afraid you'd sell the avionics or the stealth technology to the chinese.

Chicago
05-27-2009, 8:20 AM
Yesterday the 7th Circuit heard oral arguments in the consolidated appeals of McDonald v. Chicago, NRA v. Chicago, and NRA v. Oak Park. The panel consisted of chief judge Frank Easterbrook (Reagan, 1985), former chief judge Richard Posner (Reagan, 1981), and Quilici v. Morton Grove (1982 gun-ban precident) author William Bauer (Ford, 1974). Steven Holbrook represented the NRA and Alan Gura represented McDonald; though neither was allowed to say much.

For anyone interested, the audio is available here:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=08-4241_001.mp3

On the up side, at least we don't have to wait three months to learn of the court's opinion.

ke6guj
05-27-2009, 10:02 AM
On the up side, at least we don't have to wait three months to learn of the court's opinion.

As in, by the tone of the questioning, or, the rules of the 7th circuit don't allow for them to take three months to release an opinion.

swhatb
05-27-2009, 4:48 PM
Good response...

Heller makes it plain that as long as an arm is not "dangerous and unusual" (Pen gun, SBS, Machine Gun) and is commonly owned for lawful purposes, it can't be banned.

The State will not Incorporate. Federal Courts will Incorporate against the states and the Federal Courts will drive the interpretation of the 2A as incorporated via 14A. Heller in turn drives the Federal Courts.

-Gene