PDA

View Full Version : McDonald: Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents are in


Liberty1
01-06-2010, 12:03 PM
http://www.chicagoguncase.com/case-filings/

Only 5 briefs so far...in support of Chicago...

Looks like it's 305 Congress critters (inc. 53 Senators) for the Right vs 54 (and NO Senators) against! Ha!



updated

it's now the unlucky 16 vs. the 31 slayers of Crukshank + 2 spinless worms :D

and 3 states vs 38!!!

Liberty1
01-06-2010, 12:37 PM
The Ca. Representatives joining Chicago are ONLY 9 (one is too many).

The list of the misguided;) is:

Rep. Capps
Rep. Honda
Rep. Matusi
Rep. Miller
Rep. Napolitano
Rep. Alard
Rep. Sanchez
Rep. Stark
and
Rep. Woolsy

tiki
01-06-2010, 12:47 PM
I love that there are two briefs in support of "neither party". Ha ha ha.

Aegis
01-06-2010, 12:50 PM
The Ca. Representatives joining Chicago are ONLY 9 (one is too many).

The list of the misguided;) is:

Rep. Capps
Rep. Honda
Rep. Matusi
Rep. Miller
Rep. Napolitano
Rep. Alard
Rep. Sanchez
Rep. Stark
and
Rep. Woolsy

Not a surprise. It seems like these members are always on the wrong side of the issues.

gcrtkd
01-06-2010, 12:51 PM
I love that there are two briefs in support of "neither party". Ha ha ha.

my briefs are definitely in support of the petitioner.

PatriotnMore
01-06-2010, 12:55 PM
Well done. I am glad Chicago answered a nagging question I had, do actor have access to more rights than I? it would appear so. In fact, it would appear that the type of work you perform, dictates which rights you may exercise. :nono:

huggybear
01-06-2010, 12:55 PM
I love that there are two briefs in support of "neither party". Ha ha ha.

wait, so does that mean they they think that both sides are wrong or they just don't care?

bwiese
01-06-2010, 12:59 PM
wait, so does that mean they they think that both sides are wrong or they just don't care?

They may be interested in some specific and limited aspect, procedure or concept - as opposed to the actual outcome.

BigDogatPlay
01-06-2010, 1:09 PM
That Lynn Woolsey would join in such a brief is no surprise. What is surprising is that she has enough brain cells to scrape together to sign her name to something at all. She is the worst of political jokes and sitting in one the top 5 safest seats in the House.

Gaaaaaak....

Davidoff
01-06-2010, 2:04 PM
Why is the NAACP so interested in keeping Cruikshank alive? I just read their brief, and they really seem to hate PoI. Does the NAACP not like rights? It seems like SAF, Gura and Cato are following their playbook for regaining our 2A rights, so they might as well jump aboard.

Kharn
01-06-2010, 2:06 PM
wait, so does that mean they they think that both sides are wrong or they just don't care?They realize Chicago's as screwed as the turkey on Thanksgiving morning, and they're the pig hoping ham isn't on the menu as well. Brady Campaign argues that incorporation will occur but to set the standard of review to reasonable or some equally low threshold so all the laws can be preserved.

wash
01-06-2010, 2:14 PM
Why is the NAACP so interested in keeping Cruikshank alive? I just read their brief, and they really seem to hate PoI. Does the NAACP not like rights? It seems like SAF, Gura and Cato are following their playbook for regaining our 2A rights, so they might as well jump aboard.
There seems to be a fairly large portion of black people that are anti-gun. Probably because they see a lot of violence in their comunity. It's too bad that they are too blind to see that restrictive gun laws usually increase violent crime, so they support restrictive gun laws in spite of themselves.

It is funny that they can convince themselves to get behind this when you think about how anti-black racism is what gave us these horrible prescedents.

2009_gunner
01-06-2010, 2:53 PM
Wow. I've just started reading trough these briefs, but one (or many) is particularly disgusting. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a group that is supposed to support Jews in this country argues that:

Extremists and those who commit hate crimes pose a serious threat to the safety of the general public and, more specifically, to the members of discrete racial, ethnic, and religious groups who often become their targets...The extremist threat described below counsels that the Court should decide this case narrowly, so the dialogue below - and experimentation with effective gun control measures - can continue.

Don't these jokers learn the lessons of history?? I have a significant Jewish ancestry, and find their argument incredibly shortsighted - disarm the minority and then the government will always be there to protect them... right.:rolleyes:

Kharn
01-06-2010, 3:16 PM
Lets just say JPFO and ADL are not on each other's Hanukkah card lists.

Glock22Fan
01-06-2010, 3:17 PM
my briefs are definitely in support of the petitioner.


My briefs are supporting my -- no, strike that, there may be children and ladies present.

GuyW
01-06-2010, 3:38 PM
There seems to be a fairly large portion of black people that are anti-gun.

How is the NAACP like the KKK?

They both want to disarm black people.....

(plaigiarized from someone else)

It would have been rich, though, if the KKK or fellow idealogues, had submitted a brief arguing for disarming minorities....
.

navyinrwanda
01-06-2010, 3:39 PM
One interesting commonality of some of these briefs is their explicit acceptance of incorporation, as many turn their focus to the post-McDonald contours of an incorporated right to keep and bear arms (e.g., brief of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence arguing that the Second Amendment does not protect a “right to keep and bear arms for the insurrectionary purpose of attacking so-called government ‘tyranny.’”)

And others seem to be little more that tirades from academics who sense their life's work may be spiraling down a drain (e.g., brief of Historians and Legal Scholars insisting that “(n)othing in the language of the (Privileges or Immunities) Clause makes it obvious that that provision would incorporate the Bill of Rights,” followed by a Chicken Little warning that “(i)f the Court finds these sources convincing, then it must also be prepared to... embrace... other highly indeterminate, ultimately judge-divined rights. Petitioners’ constitutional theory is an invitation to resurrect Lochner and its progeny.”)

Kharn
01-06-2010, 3:47 PM
From IL, MD & NJ's amicus:
In short, while it codifies an individual right, the Second Amendment exists to protect the militia from elimination by the federal government.I hope MD didnt use any of my tax dollars to pay for this tripe.
[A]lthough petitioners’ amici raise the specter that,
absent incorporation, “millions of Americans will be
deprived of their Second Amendment right to keep and
bear arms as a result of actions by local governments,”
Texas Br. 1 (emphasis added), there is no reason to
believe that incorporation is necessary to police
municipal gun regulations. The States are already
doing this themselves.Speechless
To the contrary, gun owners long have been treated in the legislative arenas with full concern and respect.Right...

PonchoTA
01-06-2010, 5:17 PM
That Lynn Woolsey would join in such a brief is no surprise. What is surprising is that she has enough brain cells to scrape together to sign her name to something at all. She is the worst of political jokes and sitting in one the top 5 safest seats in the House.

Gaaaaaak....

Yeah, and Lois freaking Capps (b1tch) too. :mad:

gawd how I hate her.

I wish she were up for reelection, I hope to find somebody that could go up against her, I'd vote for them in a heartbeat.

:(

.

navyinrwanda
01-06-2010, 5:30 PM
Yeah, and Lois freaking Capps (b1tch) too. :mad:

gawd how I hate her.

I wish she were up for reelection, I hope to find somebody that could go up against her, I'd vote for them in a heartbeat.

:(

.
Uh, she is in just under 10 months, on November 2, 2010.

The term for every member of Congress is two years.

Syntax Error
01-06-2010, 5:52 PM
Nice to see my representative (Capps) going for Chicago. :rolleyes:

Rated "F" by the NRA.

PonchoTA
01-06-2010, 6:01 PM
Uh, she is in just under 10 months, on November 2, 2010.

The term for every member of Congress is two years.
Good. Then I'm voting against her, and encouraging everybody I know to do likewise.

:yes:

.

Alaric
01-06-2010, 6:22 PM
Uh, she is in just under 10 months, on November 2, 2010.

The term for every member of Congress is two years.

Yes and No.

Yes, Lois -freaking- Capps is up for reelection in 2010.

No, every member of Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) does NOT serve a two year term. Congress is a bicameral legislature, made up of the House of Representatives who serve two year terms, and the Senate, who serve staggered six year terms. Where you might be confused is that a particular "congress" changes every 2 years.

nicki
01-07-2010, 2:27 AM
Perhaps we can draft up some letters in plain English with appropriate references, set up some appointments and visit each congressman's district office and talk with a staffer and let them know what their boss has done.

Conversation should be friendly, the tone would be we are your friends, and my dear friend, you really screwed up and we suggest that you change your actions otherwise you could have significant unintended consequences.


Nicki

Mulay El Raisuli
01-07-2010, 7:19 AM
Wow. I've just started reading trough these briefs, but one (or many) is particularly disgusting. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a group that is supposed to support Jews in this country argues that:



Don't these jokers learn the lessons of history?? I have a significant Jewish ancestry, and find their argument incredibly shortsighted - disarm the minority and then the government will always be there to protect them... right.:rolleyes:


Clearly, they haven't learned the lessons of history.

They've also amazed & astounded me with the basics of their argument, which boils down to; 'No one has done anything major in re Heller & the 2A, so lets not to anything major now.' Wouldn't the fact that nothing major has been done be all the more reason for the Court to lay down some guidance?????

But my biggest cause for the OMG, I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY SAID THAT is that they relay a great deal on the book Scrutinizing the Second Amendment, by Adam Winkler. Footnote 47 is all that need be quoted to show the absolute bankruptcy of his thinking & honesty:
"47 Winkler points out that the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law" abridging the right it protects, but the Second Amendment explicitly incorporates the "necessity" of a "well regulated Militia": "One provision suggests the invalidity of any legislation; the other invites regulation. Winkler, supra, at 707"

Did he really say that??? Did the ADL really quote that??? Because clearly neither Winkler nor the ADL finished reading the 2A to where it says "Shall not be infringed." Since I did read it ALL the way through, I'm not seeing ANY "invitation" to regulation in the Amendment. ALL I see is an explicit ban on regulation. That anyone with a working brain can even begin to think otherwise is proof that they don't really have a working brain. The good is that slapping down such stupidity is fairly easy.

Maybe Gura should sip Manishevitz wine as he blasts this POS into the trash?


The Raisuli

PatriotnMore
01-07-2010, 7:28 AM
Did he really say that??? Did the ADL really quote that??? Because clearly neither Winkler nor the ADL finished reading the 2A to where it says "Shall not be infringed." Since I did read it ALL the way through, I'm not seeing ANY "invitation" to regulation in the Amendment.
The Raisuli

I agree, but if we are being intellectually honest, many if not all parties arguing 2A seem to leave this out of the process, and I am continually perplexed at this. Those not friendly to the true meaning of 2A would be foolish to open the dialog on the whole 2A and "shall not be infringed" if the so called proponents won't address it.

gregorylucas
01-07-2010, 8:02 AM
That Lynn Woolsey would join in such a brief is no surprise. What is surprising is that she has enough brain cells to scrape together to sign her name to something at all. She is the worst of political jokes and sitting in one the top 5 safest seats in the House.

Gaaaaaak....

Yeah, she's had no serious challenge EVER and the worst of it is that she's my rep.....:mad:

-Greg

Mulay El Raisuli
01-07-2010, 8:37 AM
I agree, but if we are being intellectually honest, many if not all parties arguing 2A seem to leave this out of the process, and I am continually perplexed at this. Those not friendly to the true meaning of 2A would be foolish to open the dialog on the whole 2A and "shall not be infringed" if the so called proponents won't address it.


Now that you mention it, & now that I see you're right, I am perplexed also.


The Raisuli

hill billy
01-07-2010, 10:08 AM
They realize Chicago's as screwed as the turkey on Thanksgiving morning, and they're the pig hoping ham isn't on the menu as well. Brady Campaign argues that incorporation will occur but to set the standard of review to reasonable or some equally low threshold so all the laws can be preserved.

I laughed out loud at this one. I hope you're right.

hill billy
01-07-2010, 10:13 AM
And others seem to be little more that tirades from academics who sense their life's work may be spiraling down a drain

It will be amusing in the event that Chicago loses, to watch these same folks, "weep and wail and knash their teeth" in the wake of the decision like they did after Heller.

lioneaglegriffin
01-07-2010, 10:55 AM
There seems to be a fairly large portion of black people that are anti-gun. Probably because they see a lot of violence in their comunity. It's too bad that they are too blind to see that restrictive gun laws usually increase violent crime, so they support restrictive gun laws in spite of themselves.

It is funny that they can convince themselves to get behind this when you think about how anti-black racism is what gave us these horrible prescedents.

many blacks have a "no guns in the house rule" especially if kids are living there.

most pro-gun black i know are prior or currently in the military and their families.

and the rest are pretty neutral they don't care if other people have guns as long as they are shooting them at their "babies". so they are pretty much against illegal firearms and thats where the misguided anti gun support can start. (gang violence)

my family is the same way, they keep all their guns in a locked shed outside next to the hunting dogs.

chuckles48
01-07-2010, 6:33 PM
Not a surprise. It seems like these members are always on the wrong side of the issues.

That being said, at the next election they can be cited as having being in favor of eliminating your civil rights.

;>

Fjold
01-07-2010, 6:58 PM
I love that there are two briefs in support of "neither party". Ha ha ha.

They may be interested in some specific and limited aspect, procedure or concept - as opposed to the actual outcome.

One of them is the Brady Bunch.

Reading their brief they seem to have given up on the case and are begging that the level of scrutiny for gunlaws should be "reasonable" not "strict" scrutiny.

lioneaglegriffin
01-07-2010, 7:05 PM
One of them is the Brady Bunch.

Reading their brief they seem to have given up on the case and are begging that the level of scrutiny for gunlaws should be "reasonable" not "strict" scrutiny.

so they're saying: not in the face, not the face!

they know they're going to get hit but they trying to avoid a world of hurt and the big a** whoopin' thats coming their way?

N6ATF
01-10-2010, 12:47 AM
That being said, at the next election they can be cited as having being in favor of eliminating your civil rights.

;>

And your life.

/Inside a single family home at night/
A mother is just finishing putting her baby to sleep, and hears an engine rumbling up the street. She looks out the second-story window and sees a beat-up Chevy Nova with its lights out turning into her down-sloping driveway. It cuts its engine at the top of the hill, and glides down to the front door.

2 skinny white guys with long hair and their teeth partially missing slip out. The passenger, holding a beer bottle, the driver, smoking a cigarette. The driver pops the trunk, takes out a fire axe and hands the other guy a gas can.

The woman wishes her husband hadn't taken overtime tonight /show husband blissfully unaware/, and that she hadn't turned in her dad's old army rifle and 1911 at the amnesty turn-in /show flashback/. And that they hadn't bought a house on a cliff /show cliff face and ocean below/, with the only way out past the two men outside.

The guy with the gas can pours some on the dried out bushes around the house (because of water restrictions), and the pile of wood stacked against the house. Fire axe guy nods in approval, switches with him, puts his lit cigarette inside the can, which lights the remaining fuel, and he throws it on the roof. When the guy with the fire axe chops down the door, the other throws rocks through the windows nearest the bushes and wood pile, lights up a couple cigarettes, throws them on either end of the bushes, and pitches his lighter at the wood pile.

Fire axe guy is up to the second story by now, with the woman cradling her baby in the closet, with 911 on the line. Unfortunately the nearest cop is 5 minutes out, and she's about to be decapitated in 30 seconds. Time skip to her body (carefully shot as if the actress were headless, without seeing the head separate), and the baby crying its head off. Then the murder arsonists peeling out of the neighborhood. Then to the fire rolling up towards the baby... blackout. "This is what Incumbent X votes for."

curtisfong
01-10-2010, 8:31 AM
Footnote 47 is all that need be quoted to show the absolute bankruptcy of his thinking & honesty:
"47 Winkler points out that the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law" abridging the right it protects, but the Second Amendment explicitly incorporates the "necessity" of a "well regulated Militia": "One provision suggests the invalidity of any legislation; the other invites regulation (!!!!!!!!!). Winkler, supra, at 707"


Clearly, they haven't learned the lessons of history.

Let alone the contemporaneous definition of "well regulated", which has nothing to do with regulation.

Unless Winkler and the ADL actually think regulating firearm ownership makes militias better trained. When idiots write stuff like this, are there really no consequences?

Mulay El Raisuli
01-11-2010, 6:16 AM
Let alone the contemporaneous definition of "well regulated", which has nothing to do with regulation.

Unless Winkler and the ADL actually think regulating firearm ownership makes militias better trained. When idiots write stuff like this, are there really no consequences?


Sadly, there really aren't any. Winkler can write his trash all day long, have his head up his tail all day long, & nothing bad will happen to him.


The Raisuli

mblat
01-11-2010, 7:01 AM
Sadly, there really aren't any. Winkler can write his trash all day long, have his head up his tail all day long, & nothing bad will happen to him.


The Raisuli

Sadly? There is a thing that is called First Amendment. You know comes before Second? :cool:

socal2310
01-11-2010, 7:37 AM
And your life.

/Inside a single family home at night/
A mother is just finishing putting her baby to sleep, and hears an engine rumbling up the street. She looks out the second-story window and sees a beat-up Chevy Nova with its lights out turning into her down-sloping driveway. It cuts its engine at the top of the hill, and glides down to the front door.

2 skinny white guys with long hair and their teeth partially missing slip out. The passenger, holding a beer bottle, the driver, smoking a cigarette. The driver pops the trunk, takes out a fire axe and hands the other guy a gas can.

The woman wishes her husband hadn't taken overtime tonight /show husband blissfully unaware/, and that she hadn't turned in her dad's old army rifle and 1911 at the amnesty turn-in /show flashback/. And that they hadn't bought a house on a cliff /show cliff face and ocean below/, with the only way out past the two men outside.

The guy with the gas can pours some on the dried out bushes around the house (because of water restrictions), and the pile of wood stacked against the house. Fire axe guy nods in approval, switches with him, puts his lit cigarette inside the can, which lights the remaining fuel, and he throws it on the roof. When the guy with the fire axe chops down the door, the other throws rocks through the windows nearest the bushes and wood pile, lights up a couple cigarettes, throws them on either end of the bushes, and pitches his lighter at the wood pile.

Fire axe guy is up to the second story by now, with the woman cradling her baby in the closet, with 911 on the line. Unfortunately the nearest cop is 5 minutes out, and she's about to be decapitated in 30 seconds. Time skip to her body (carefully shot as if the actress were headless, without seeing the head separate), and the baby crying its head off. Then the murder arsonists peeling out of the neighborhood. Then to the fire rolling up towards the baby... blackout. "This is what Incumbent X votes for."

That sounds pretty good, but you need to make sure the woman is a minority. Also, you have a slight problem with feasibility as the cherry of a lit cigarette isn't hot enough to ignite gasoline, even if you draw heavily on it while putting it contact with the liquid.

Ryan

CSDGuy
01-11-2010, 7:58 AM
The cherry of a lit cig is hot enough to ignite gas vapor. It's going to be burning at about 750 degrees F... and gas will autoignite around 450 degrees. The good news is that if you can keep the vapor from igniting, the liquid will draw off enough heat and not allow oxygen to reach it thereby putting out the cigarette. Drop a match into a gas can that's completely full and what MIGHT you get? A fire. Do the same thing to a gas can that's nearly EMPTY and we'll be talking about that explosion we heard the other day...

Anyway, the point is that scene would work just fine, and since people know that lit cigarettes and gas don't mix...

7x57
01-11-2010, 8:55 AM
many blacks have a "no guns in the house rule" especially if kids are living there.


Many *people* have that rule. Follow the chain of probable causality. They have that rule because they believed someone who lied to them. Most, though not all of the people who tell that lie are on the left. Black Americans listen to the left in greater proportion than, say, white Americans.

On the plantation you don't have guns, and a lot of people are on the liberal plantation. We're all intended to be shuffled on to that plantation, however, which is why I don't see the value in making it a race issue.

7x57

Mulay El Raisuli
01-12-2010, 5:51 AM
Sadly? There is a thing that is called First Amendment. You know comes before Second? :cool:


Which is what protects him from any consequences from his writing such trash.


The Raisuli