PDA

View Full Version : Gura's Reply in McDonald v. Chicago


hoffmang
05-14-2009, 9:13 PM
Alan Gura's reply brief (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/final_chicago_reply_brief.pdf) in McDonald v. Chicago has been filed and posted.

Nordyke figures prominently. It's very well written as usual.

-Gene

BroncoBob
05-14-2009, 9:47 PM
I read the brief and I must confess, I had a hard time understanding it. Will have to leave this to the guys who know. If Gene says it well written he would know.

DDT
05-14-2009, 9:54 PM
sounds like P&I is a major goal here. Are we looking for that specifically? Does it mean greater scrutiny of any potentially infringing legislation than Due Process incorporation?

hoffmang
05-14-2009, 10:01 PM
sounds like P&I is a major goal here. Are we looking for that specifically? Does it mean greater scrutiny of any potentially infringing legislation than Due Process incorporation?

P&I is being preserved for the Supreme Court. You'll note that McDonald says very specifically that they want only selective incorporation.

-Gene

elenius
05-14-2009, 10:16 PM
P&I is being preserved for the Supreme Court. You'll note that McDonald says very specifically that they want only selective incorporation.

-Gene

But P&I was conspicuously there in their earlier briefs:

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/motionnarrowlegalissues.pdf
http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/appellants_brief_074244final.pdf

Are they toning it down since Nordyke only incorporated through Due Process?

hoffmang
05-14-2009, 10:19 PM
down since Nordyke only incorporated through Due Process?

No. The 7th Circuit really can't overturn the Slaughterhouse Cases, so the correct and only way to win in Chicago is to ask for Due Process selective Incorporation just like Nordyke but in the 7th Circuit. The Supreme Court is not so bound by Slaughterhouse Cases.

-Gene

yellowfin
05-14-2009, 11:26 PM
Will CSPAN pick up the orals for this case too?

DDT
05-14-2009, 11:30 PM
No. The 7th Circuit really can't overturn the Slaughterhouse Cases, so the correct and only way to win in Chicago is to ask for Due Process selective Incorporation just like Nordyke but in the 7th Circuit. The Supreme Court is not so bound by Slaughterhouse Cases.


Well, if the good guys win Chicago and the bad guys appeal is SCOTUS really likely to change the reason for incorporation and give us full P&I incorporation? It would seem that unless the good guys lose and are the appellants the court will only affirm or overturn. I don't know why Gura isn't just going straight for P&I assuming a loss and getting to argue what he REALLY wants to win in front of SCOTUS. I am not suggesting that I know better how to work a conlaw case that Gura, I am only asking for my own edification assuming he has considered all this already.

hoffmang
05-14-2009, 11:34 PM
Well, if the good guys win Chicago and the bad guys appeal is SCOTUS really likely to change the reason for incorporation and give us full P&I incorporation?

If we win and Chicago appeals, SCOTUS is likely to take very seriously the opportunity to overturn Slaughterhouse. However, if they don't opt to do that, they'll likely just affirm selective due process incorporation.

Bringing P&I to the court just adds likelihood that SCOUTS grants Nordyke or McDonald.

-Gene

DDT
05-14-2009, 11:36 PM
So essentially Gura is bringing up P&I so that it can be argued in later appeals but is asking for selective because there is no specific case law against selective incorporation of 2A?

hoffmang
05-14-2009, 11:44 PM
So essentially Gura is bringing up P&I so that it can be argued in later appeals but is asking for selective because there is no specific case law against selective incorporation of 2A?

Yes. Just like Nordyke actually.

-Gene

Mulay El Raisuli
05-15-2009, 7:10 AM
I must be absorbing this stuff through the air or something. I'm seeing a lot of what I advocate in there.

The Raisuli

ilbob
05-15-2009, 7:39 AM
My favorite part is where Gura says:

This is not the forum for Defendants to re-argue Heller. This Court
can spend no time reconsidering claims that the Second Amendment
protects only an interest of the states to militarily resist the federal
government, as imagined by the alternative history rejected in Heller.

I can only imagine the consternation in Chicago that their lawyers are essentially arguing there is a constitutional right for the states to militarily resist the federal government.

Of course, that is one of the reasons for the 2A, but only one of them.

I think it would be cool if the court agreed with their lawyers and said that it is indeed one, but not the sole reason for the amendment. That would produce ten times the shock to the system.