PDA

View Full Version : Chicago gun case antigun amicus


ilbob
05-04-2009, 5:42 AM
Apparently their theory on the second amendment is that handguns are NOT the weapon of choice for self defense, and that the long gun best suited for self defense (the AR) can be regulated out of existence.

They are obviously in a panic that the seven states with AWBs will see them overturned.

Here is a great quote from the brief.

If popularity of a weapon is the standard, the assault-weapon bans presently in place in seven states now may be vulnerable to constitutional challenge because, following the election and inauguration of President Obama, assault weapons apparently were purchased in other states en masse in fear of a federal ban.

Apparently they have noticed.

What seven states have AWBs?

CA, NY, HI, MA. Who are the other 3?

FreshTapCoke
05-04-2009, 7:40 AM
Is New Jersey another one?

yellowfin
05-04-2009, 7:42 AM
NJ and CT were the ones I knew about.

CCWFacts
05-04-2009, 7:53 AM
MD has a weak AWB. So the seven are:

CA, NY, HI, MA, CT, NJ and MD

CCWFacts
05-04-2009, 8:14 AM
I'm reading their brief now. A lot of it seems like they are trying to argue against Heller. Um, Heller was already decided, guys! Just sayin'!

They also mis-read Heller. There's no "most popular weapon" test in Heller. Heller didn't say, "go out and do a survey and whatever is the top choice for self-defense, use it."

There's also a lot of citations of previous state-level court cases where various gun bans have been upheld. Indeed, courts have upheld a lot of gun bans over the years.

They also try to argue that the right to bear arms is subordinate to the right of personal safety, and the right of personal safety could be better advanced by gun bans and police. (Even though police have no duty to protect anyone, I'm not sure how their logic is working here...)

Their arguments seem very thin and hopeless.

7x57
05-04-2009, 8:29 AM
Their arguments seem very thin and hopeless.

They're welcome to our world, then. Hope they enjoy it. Our arguments in court were "very thin and hopeless" so far as we had to stay within the courts' ahistorical, illegitimate reading of the Constitution pre-Heller. The shoe is on the other foot now.

7x57

HowardW56
05-04-2009, 8:31 AM
I'm reading their brief now. A lot of it seems like they are trying to argue against Heller. Um, Heller was already decided, guys! Just sayin'!

They also mis-read Heller. There's no "most popular weapon" test in Heller. Heller didn't say, "go out and do a survey and whatever is the top choice for self-defense, use it."

There's also a lot of citations of previous state-level court cases where various gun bans have been upheld. Indeed, courts have upheld a lot of gun bans over the years.

They also try to argue that the right to bear arms is subordinate to the right of personal safety, and the right of personal safety could be better advanced by gun bans and police. (Even though police have no duty to protect anyone, I'm not sure how their logic is working here...)

Their arguments seem very thin and hopeless.

Sure seems that way... They are arguing Heller all over again...

I don't see how they get around the fact that the Handgun that Heller wanter to register was found to be protected...

ilbob
05-04-2009, 9:01 AM
This seems like a very weak argument. Maybe in a legal sense it is not, but I can't imagine trying to go to court and arguing that a very recent and very public supreme court decision is wrong.

It really does not matter at all if it is wrong or not. The decision was made, and you have to make arguments that take that into account.

bwiese
05-04-2009, 9:21 AM
They also mis-read Heller. There's no "most popular weapon" test in
Heller. Heller didn't say, "go out and do a survey and whatever is the
top choice for self-defense, use it."

Yup. However being of "common use" and not being "dangerous *and* unusual" are the big things.

Either way - purely survey-wise, or via broad concept - we win. There's no requirement for the item to be #1 on a list to have Heller protection (and for the 7th or 16th listed item to be disqualified from Heller protection).

Even pre-Obamacide, for the last decade, ARs have been selling at a high rate. Pooling ARs from all mfgrs/configs into "one SKU" is gonna ensure "AR-style rifles" are gonna be in the Top 10 (or, at worst, 20 but that's highly unlikely).

Doesn't matter if it's not at the top of the list or even Top 3, the relative commonality is good enough. (We also have Thomas in Staples saying in essence that AR15s are so common in daily use/possession, that one would not pause to evaluate if it were an illegal weapon (M16/NFA full auto etc.))

People like AR black rifles for some of the same reasons they like GM & Ford pickup trucks: as market leaders, there's a broad array of accessories to fine-tune the rifle for any of its legal uses, including Heller-supported legal uses as a valid subset. Most replacement parts are not constrained by licensing/proprietary issues and don't have 'sole-source' drama.

I see Chicago grasping at straws here.

Roadrunner
05-04-2009, 9:36 AM
So Bill, will the fact that AR's are so popular be a way of defeating the AWB? And what about the add typical configurations that are standard on AR's. We all know what is a typical factory build, for an AR 15, can that be used as the standard for all rifles? And what about add ons like lights and red dot sights?

7x57
05-04-2009, 9:36 AM
People like AR black rifles for some of the same reasons they like GM & Ford pickup trucks: as market leaders, there's a broad array of accessories to fine-tune the rifle for any of its legal uses, including Heller-supported legal uses as a valid subset. Most replacement parts are not constrained by licensing/proprietary issues and don't have 'sole-source' drama.


But absolutists will still do what they can. You can't put an aftermarket part on your engine unless it has passed the automotive equivalent of the "not-unsafe" handgun roster. I asked a State Referee (not the yokels that do most of the smog tests and know nothing) why the state didn't just test your car and pass it if the emissions are acceptable, no need to ask what you did to your engine. He said that they could have when they went to OBDII, but to shave ten minutes or so off the test (or, my real belief, because they wanted the extra control over people's lives, but that's another story) they went with a test that just doesn't measure real-world emissions. One effect is to actually forbid emissions *improving* modifications in certain cases (such as the '65 Dodge I once owned, I would not have been able to put a modern engine in it with 1% of the emissions because it wasn't tested that way).

Note that California created a new bureaucracy and a new control over your life, without benefit. That's how CA works. Even without gun issues, CA will *always* choose the most controlling, anti-freedom alternative possible.


I see Chicago grasping at straws here.

And we dearly love them for having the same sort of evil hubris as DC has, and that gave us Heller.

7x57

CCWFacts
05-04-2009, 9:55 AM
Even pre-Obamacide, for the last decade, ARs have been selling at a high rate. Pooling ARs from all mfgrs/configs into "one SKU" is gonna ensure
"AR-style rifles" are gonna be in the Top 10 (or, at worst, 20 but that's highly unlikely).

I'm pretty sure that AR-15s in general are the top-selling centerfire rifle in the US. All the major manufacturers are making them now, plus dozens or even hundreds of smaller shops.

People like AR black rifles for some of the same reasons they like GM & Ford pickup trucks: as market leaders, there's a broad array of accessories to fine-tune the rifle for any of its legal uses.

It's exactly the same reason, or why people like Harleys. It has become the standard thing with an infinite amount of modifications, aftermarket parts, etc. For good reason: it's effectively become an "open source" platform at this point, it's cheap to shoot, and the platform itself is very capable. People can use them for everything from close-quarters home defense to plinking to hunting to shooting at > 700 yards. It does it all.

I see Chicago grasping at straws here.

Yeah, they spend most of the brief trying to re-argue Heller, mainly using theories of police power and this new idea that the right to bear arms is subordinate to the right of personal security. Sorry, doesn't work that way!

bwiese
05-04-2009, 9:55 AM
So Bill, will the fact that AR's are so popular be a way of defeating the AWB? And what about the add typical configurations that are standard on AR's. We all know what is a typical factory build, for an AR 15, can that be used as the standard for all rifles? And what about add ons like lights and red dot sights?

Don't think just ARs.

Think "semiauto centerfire rifles" of any brand, and the relevant cosmetic features become trivial ergonomic details.

The higher up we go, the more ridiculous "this rifle with MonsterMan grip is legal but this rifle without the web-of-hand-blocked is illegal" concepts will be.

nicki
05-04-2009, 10:59 AM
Well, this will be interesting to see how this unfolds, will the 7th circuit rule to the left of the 9th circuit:eek:

Will the 9th lose lose the crown of being the most anti gun circuit in the country:rolleyes:

Will Jesse Jackoff , the civil entitlement and culture of dependence leader, lead a protest march to effectively uphold "Crunshiak".

I guess Alan Gura LLP must be the devil incarnate.

I wonder how they will try to smear Alan. For those of you who have never met Alan, he really is a good guy.

Nicki

CCWFacts
05-04-2009, 11:05 AM
Will Jesse Jackoff , the civil entitlement and culture of dependence leader, lead a protest march to effectively uphold "Crunshiak".

That would be hilarious and yet tragic also.

I note that the Amicus brief there didn't talk at all about Cruikshank. Maybe even these vile people had enough humanity to want to avoid Cruikshank.

Maestro Pistolero
05-04-2009, 11:07 AM
I just skimmed the brief, but I doubt the SCOTUS will take kindly to the 7th attempting to discredit and undermine a settled ruling into which they clearly poured their heart and soul.

The approach shows how insurmountable the Heller decision is for them. If they don't undermine it, then they have nowhere to go.

CCWFacts
05-04-2009, 11:37 AM
I just skimmed the brief, but I doubt the SCOTUS will take kindly to the 7th attempting to discredit and undermine a settled ruling into which they clearly poured their heart and soul.

Yeah! It's going to be hilarious to see them trying to base their case on the idea that SCOTUS was wrong. "I know you guys wrote that long, detailed, logical opinion on that... but you were wrong!!!! Waaaaaaaaa!!!!!"

http://dequalss.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/crying-baby-party-56800676.jpg

DDT
05-04-2009, 12:04 PM
Don't think just ARs.

Think "semiauto centerfire rifles" of any brand, and the relevant cosmetic features become trivial ergonomic details.

The higher up we go, the more ridiculous "this rifle with MonsterMan grip is legal but this rifle without the web-of-hand-blocked is illegal" concepts will be.


To me this is the really critical piece. What is "common use?"

I argue, like Bill, that common use is not a model or even "platform" but rather a family of firearms.

Traditional metal cartridge rifles: (both rim and center fire)

Rifles
bolt action
single shot
integral magazine
detachable magazine
lever action
integral magazine
detachable magazine
semi auto
integral magazine
detachable magazine
SBRs
select fire
detachable magazine
disguised weapons
cane guns
guitar case guns
etc.

Shotguns
pump
semi-auto
SBSs

Handguns
revolvers
semi-autos
disguised guns
pen guns
wallet guns
briefcase guns
iPod/cell-phone guns
etc.

If you look at the way one would go about creating a taxonomy of firearms (I am not a taxonomist but the above is a decent first 10 minute cut) it becomes a bit more clear what would be considered in "common use." Creating a taxonomy that talks about "forward pistol grips" or "magazine interlocks" or "AR-series" is nonsensical until you are MANY MANY levels deeper than needed for a clear determination of "common use."

GuyW
05-04-2009, 12:38 PM
If you look at the way one would go about creating a taxonomy of firearms (I am not a taxonomist but the above is a decent first 10 minute cut) it becomes a bit more clear what would be considered in "common use." Creating a taxonomy that talks about "forward pistol grips" or "magazine interlocks" or "AR-series" is nonsensical until you are MANY MANY levels deeper than needed for a clear determination of "common use."

Outstanding post.

I foresee an amicus brief by a taxonomist in our future....
.

yellowfin
05-04-2009, 1:01 PM
There are also pump action (e.g. Remington 25, 760, and 7600) and side by side double rifles (African game such as Holland & Holland, Jefferey, Hensley & Gibbs) and lever action shotguns (Winchester 1887).

DDT
05-04-2009, 1:14 PM
There are also pump action (e.g. Remington 25, 760, and 7600) and side by side double rifles (African game such as Holland & Holland, Jefferey, Hensley & Gibbs) and lever action shotguns (Winchester 1887).

And SxS and OU shotguns. I was just tossing something up that I thought of while posting. I'm sure with a couple hours to noodle I could do much better. I'm also not sure if/how I would include large-bore firearms.

I also didn't address AOWs such as cruisers, non-stocked rifles (M2 etc.), et al. Then there's Air guns, bow and arrows, swords, etc. All arms that may or may not be in "Common use"

The list goes on.

DDT
05-04-2009, 1:17 PM
Anybody know real taxonomists who are 2A friendly? Hell, D.C. had english professors trying to tell SCOTUS what each comma meant despite all common sense, history and intent. It would be good to have a professional taxonomist help us get a reasonable taxonomy entered as amicus to help the courts create a reasonable structure for regulation that is clear and understandable.

kermit315
05-04-2009, 4:41 PM
Whats terrible is that it is a purely "Chicago" thing. Illinois doesnt even have an AWB that they could fall back on. You can go from being legal to illegal by crossing a county line.