PDA

View Full Version : Alito, McDonald v. Chicago


-hanko
06-22-2010, 6:10 AM
From last night's SCOTUS blog...

"Erin: With HLP today, that leaves two cases undecided from the February sitting: Skilling and McDonald.
Monday June 21, 2010 10:22 Erin

10:23 Erin: Interestingly, with the Chief Justice writing today, only two Justices have not authored opinions from that sitting: Ginsburg and Alito"

McDonald will most likely be issued one week from today (it is rare, though possible, for decision announcements to be delayed until the next term).

Expect a strong reaction from Mayor Daley.

AND - be watchful for how the NRA frames the victory: they CANNOT claim all the credit, since they did not locate the plaintiffs, they did not file or initiate the suit, and they forced their way into a portion of the oral argument phase to argue a point which had already been hammered home in the plaintiffs' lawyer's brief.

Alan Gura/2nd Amendment Foundation are the ones responsible for this lawsuit.

More on ARF, http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1055932

-hanko

FirstFlight
06-22-2010, 6:26 AM
Good to hear some movement on this. Only six days to go! I can't wait! Who really cares what organization gets "credit" for this. We have all been working together on this for years.

limitdown
06-22-2010, 7:56 AM
I think it's very important to point out who actually took the first step to articulate then execute such a brilliant case.

Those are the people I would donate big bucks to for fighting our our Calif laws.

I want to see my donated dollars put to real work!

Gray Peterson
06-22-2010, 8:12 AM
Machine Gun Sammy's writing the opinion? Interesting...

fullrearview
06-22-2010, 8:19 AM
Good to hear some movement on this. Only six days to go! I can't wait! Who really cares what organization gets "credit" for this. We have all been working together on this for years.

I care after the NRA tried to make a back door deal on free speach.....Even though the bill didn't go foreward, its not right to silence everyone else, as long as its not you!

Paladin
06-22-2010, 8:25 AM
hanko, since you italicized the quote from ARForums, you should also italicize "From last night's SCOTUS blog..." for consistency/clarity. As it is, it looks like SCOTUS blog is making the comments about the NRA. That is not true. It is the poster at AR Forums. Or don't italicize any of the ARF poster's text, only what is from SCOTUS blog.

cmth
06-22-2010, 8:26 AM
Machine Gun Sammy's writing the opinion? Interesting...

It could be Ginsburg. If that's the case, then we may get 9-0 in favor of incorporation; five for P or I, four for due process. That would be a best-case scenario, which I'm not expecting, but I could be surprised. I don't put a lot of faith in the Robed Ones to do the right thing.

choprzrul
06-22-2010, 8:36 AM
My prediction:

The court is going to use this case to start the process of overturning Slaughterhouse. They are going to proceed in an incremental manner, kinda like how the BoR were incorporated. Thus, PorI is going to be applied to the 2A with a broad brush and language will be included in the decision saying PorI only applies to 2A, but the court is ready to entertain cases for PorI for the rest of the BoR. They know that Slaughterhouse NEEDS to be overturned, but they are worried about the can of worms that it will open if it is applied all at once. This will allow them to tackle it one case at a time and be able to write in the boundaries that will apply in each case. The left wing of the court will be able to declare a victory while holding their noses because they had to apply PorI to the 2A first. The right wing of the court will be able to declare victory by saying they fully support original intent of 2A and have applied it to the states and all citizens. It will be a 9-0 vote with the left wing writing that they believe we should only be allowed to have shotguns for hunting purposes and they should be registered and regulated to near extinction.

or maybe I am crazy??


.

-hanko
06-22-2010, 8:37 AM
hanko, since you italicized the quote from ARForums, you should also italicize "From last night's SCOTUS blog..." for consistency/clarity. As it is, it looks like SCOTUS blog is making the comments about the NRA. That is not true. It is the poster at AR Forums. Or don't italicize any of the ARF poster's text, only what is from SCOTUS blog.
Done. No excuses other than lack of caffeine.:eek:

Thanks

-hanko

Mordeen
06-22-2010, 8:56 AM
My prediction:

The court is going to use this case to start the process of overturning Slaughterhouse.

.

Pardon what may be a dumb request, but can someone sum up Slaughterhouse for me briefly? I'll admit ignorance to major rulings prior to Heller.

Thanks!

-Mordeen

383green
06-22-2010, 9:06 AM
Pardon what may be a dumb request, but can someone sum up Slaughterhouse for me briefly? I'll admit ignorance to major rulings prior to Heller.

Not dumb at all; there's a lot to learn in order to understand what's going on here. Here's a quick primer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases

BigDogatPlay
06-22-2010, 9:09 AM
Pardon what may be a dumb request, but can someone sum up Slaughterhouse for me briefly? I'll admit ignorance to major rulings prior to Heller.

Thanks!

-Mordeen

Here you are. (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1872/1872_2/)

Liberty1
06-22-2010, 9:51 AM
Pardon what may be a dumb request, but can someone sum up Slaughterhouse for me briefly? I'll admit ignorance to major rulings prior to Heller.

Thanks!

-Mordeen

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v31n5/cpr31n5-2.html

Knuckle Dragger
06-22-2010, 11:17 AM
My prediction:

The court is going to use this case to start the process of overturning Slaughterhouse. They are going to proceed in an incremental manner, kinda like how the BoR were incorporated. Thus, PorI is going to be applied to the 2A with a broad brush and language will be included in the decision saying PorI only applies to 2A, but the court is ready to entertain cases for PorI for the rest of the BoR. They know that Slaughterhouse NEEDS to be overturned, but they are worried about the can of worms that it will open if it is applied all at once. This will allow them to tackle it one case at a time and be able to write in the boundaries that will apply in each case. The left wing of the court will be able to declare a victory while holding their noses because they had to apply PorI to the 2A first. The right wing of the court will be able to declare victory by saying they fully support original intent of 2A and have applied it to the states and all citizens. It will be a 9-0 vote with the left wing writing that they believe we should only be allowed to have shotguns for hunting purposes and they should be registered and regulated to near extinction.

or maybe I am crazy??


.

Your prediction is very plausible, however, I'd be surprised if they actually went as fast as to incorporate via PoI.

At this point incorporation is little more than judicial bookkeeping In fact, I think the reason they granted cert. to the McDonald case as opposed to the other two was precisely because they wanted to get PoI out on the table and talked about so they could continue to back away from decisions like the Slaughterhouse Cases and Cruikshank.

While important to us in its own right, McDonald is ultimately less about gun rights than it is about the true meaning of the 14th amendment.

Nose Nuggets
06-22-2010, 11:32 AM
Good to hear some movement on this. Only six days to go! I can't wait! Who really cares what organization gets "credit" for this. We have all been working together on this for years.

I do, because not only is Gura the man, and deserve credit for his great speaking and debating abilities, but i think the NRA is going soft.

bwiese
06-22-2010, 11:37 AM
I care after the NRA tried to make a back door deal on free speach.....Even though the bill didn't go foreward, its not right to silence everyone else, as long as its not you!

You are unclear on this. Please read the threads and why NRA did what it did.

choprzrul
06-22-2010, 11:38 AM
...

While important to us in its own right, McDonald is ultimately less about gun rights than it is about the true meaning of the 14th amendment.

This is the point that I was attempting to articulate, but you did a much better job of it. This is also exactly why I think the left-leaning portion of the court will jump on board with this decision. They will see it as an opportunity to start unraveling the injustice done through the Slaughterhouse decision and subsequent application. This is also why I have a suspicion that Ginsberg might actually pen this decision; so to forever go down in history as the justice that overturned Slaughterhouse. I really do think that the left-leaning side of the court will gladly throw the anti-gun movement under the bus for the opportunity to apply the 14th. From the first time I read about McDonald, I have thought that this case wasn't really about gun control. This may very well be THE landmark decision of our generation with very far reaching ramifications.

...then again, I may be crazy.


.

Mordeen
06-22-2010, 11:44 AM
So if I'm reading the Slaughterhouse ruling correctly, a group of dingbats decided that elements of the Constitution do not apply to residents of states, but to residents of federal enclaves or holdings like DC?

If that's correct, then WOW. Seems like some justices were spiking their coffee with laudanum.

It would be an interesting study to see how far back the erosion of the Constitution began.

Thanks for the links, folks.

-Mordeen

Foulball
06-22-2010, 12:21 PM
So if I'm reading the Slaughterhouse ruling correctly, a group of racist judges decided that elements of the Constitution do not apply to residents (blacks)of states, but to residents of federal enclaves or holdings like DC?

There, now it's a bit more accurate. :)


--

stix213
06-22-2010, 12:39 PM
I care after the NRA tried to make a back door deal on free speach.....Even though the bill didn't go foreward, its not right to silence everyone else, as long as its not you!

Its my understanding the NRA "back door deal" is what actually killed the bill, so I wouldn't be that harsh on the NRA for this.

Sinixstar
06-22-2010, 12:43 PM
Its my understanding the NRA "back door deal" is what actually killed the bill, so I wouldn't be that harsh on the NRA for this.

That was simply an unintended bonus. I don't for a second think that was the true intention. Just because it turned out okay doesn't mean all should be swept under the rug.

Knuckle Dragger
06-22-2010, 1:12 PM
This is the point that I was attempting to articulate, but you did a much better job of it. This is also exactly why I think the left-leaning portion of the court will jump on board with this decision. They will see it as an opportunity to start unraveling the injustice done through the Slaughterhouse decision and subsequent application. This is also why I have a suspicion that Ginsberg might actually pen this decision; so to forever go down in history as the justice that overturned Slaughterhouse. I really do think that the left-leaning side of the court will gladly throw the anti-gun movement under the bus for the opportunity to apply the 14th. From the first time I read about McDonald, I have thought that this case wasn't really about gun control. This may very well be THE landmark decision of our generation with very far reaching ramifications.

...then again, I may be crazy.
.

Basically PoI holds a lot of appeal for both liberals and conservatives, each for their own reasons. It should never have been read out of the Constitution.

I was able to witness Gura give his arguments before a moot court the week before the actual arguments. That argument and his brief leaned heavily on restoring PoI. The advice he received from the moot court was to present the justices with an opportunity to right an history wrong. However, the moot was still highly skeptical that the court would actually bite.

So if I'm reading the Slaughterhouse ruling correctly, a group of dingbats decided that elements of the Constitution do not apply to residents of states, but to residents of federal enclaves or holdings like DC?

-Mordeen

More to the point, they gutted (no pun intended) the entire intent of the 14th amendment and the court has been slowly backpedaling ever since.

Roadrunner
06-22-2010, 1:14 PM
That was simply an unintended bonus. I don't for a second think that was the true intention. Just because it turned out okay doesn't mean all should be swept under the rug.

Oh stop! The NRA did the only thing it was capable of doing. Wayne La Pierre and Chris Cox have explained this ad nauseum on the NRA web site. I would suggest going there and listening to them instead of just bagging on them because you somehow feel like you've been betrayed.

Sinixstar
06-22-2010, 1:19 PM
Oh stop! The NRA did the only thing it was capable of doing. Wayne La Pierre and Chris Cox have explained this ad nauseum on the NRA web site. I would suggest going there and listening to them instead of just bagging on them because you somehow feel like you've been betrayed.

I don't feel betrayed - and i'm not bagging on them. I'm simply stating that the intent was not to sandbag the legislation out of existence. That was simply a nice side-effect after the fact.

They did what they felt they had to do - that's fine. However, that's something that I personally will take into consideration and will remember.

Roadrunner
06-22-2010, 1:30 PM
I don't feel betrayed - and i'm not bagging on them. I'm simply stating that the intent was not to sandbag the legislation out of existence. That was simply a nice side-effect after the fact.

They did what they felt they had to do - that's fine. However, that's something that I personally will take into consideration and will remember.

After listening to them, I think they did exactly what they should have done. As far as I'm concerned there are a lot of very smart people there who seem to know exactly how much pressure to apply, where, and at the right time. In my opinion, this is a good example of the great expertise we have representing us in the NRA.

Sinixstar
06-22-2010, 1:34 PM
After listening to them, I think they did exactly what they should have done. As far as I'm concerned there are a lot of very smart people there who seem to know exactly how much pressure to apply, where, and at the right time. In my opinion, this is a good example of the great expertise we have representing us in the NRA.

okay.

And i'll say again - I wasn't really commenting on the right or wrong of it - just that killing the bill wasn't the express purpose of the deal.

I'm not sure if there's something confusing about what i'm saying or how i'm saying it or what...

yellowfin
06-22-2010, 1:37 PM
okay.

And i'll say again - I wasn't really commenting on the right or wrong of it - just that killing the bill wasn't the express purpose of the deal.

I'm not sure if there's something confusing about what i'm saying or how i'm saying it or what...Nope, people simply have a difference of opinion on that. Some think it was purely a poison pill, while others think it was at least a 50/50.

FirstFlight
06-22-2010, 1:40 PM
Oh stop! The NRA did the only thing it was capable of doing. Wayne La Pierre and Chris Cox have explained this ad nauseum on the NRA web site. I would suggest going there and listening to them instead of just bagging on them because you somehow feel like you've been betrayed.

I have only been on this forum for a short time but I am surprized how many anti-NRA folks there are here. I think most of the anti's are that way out of ignorance of the facts. Or are they working for the Brady Bunch? I think Roadrunner sez it better than I can. See Above

383green
06-22-2010, 1:41 PM
It's not clear to me that NRA even made a "deal". As I read the situation described, it sounded like NRA raised valid objections to the bill, then the lawmakers added language on their own initiative in order to defuse NRA's opposition, and it worked to the extent that NRA no longer felt the need to actively oppose the bill. Saying that they made a deal makes it sound like NRA cooperated with the lawmakers to carve out an exemption, as opposed to simply promising to oppose the bill as long as it would affect NRA, followed by the lawmakers trying to neutralize NRA's opposition so they could get their bill crammed through.

corrupt
06-22-2010, 1:52 PM
I am grateful for both NRA-ILA and Gura (and McDonald and others, obviously). I can't wait till next week.

Sinixstar
06-22-2010, 2:08 PM
So we go from the NRA making a deal to protect themselves from having to disclose secret information... (not that there's anything wrong with that)
Then the NRA did it to kill the bill...
Then the NRA didn't really do ANYTHING - just suggested they opposed it.


Can we at least get a general consensus as to what exactly happened?

dantodd
06-22-2010, 2:08 PM
So if I'm reading the Slaughterhouse ruling correctly, a group of dingbats decided that elements of the Constitution do not apply to residents of states, but to residents of federal enclaves or holdings like DC?



That is a very misleading interpretation of Slaughter-Houses. The fact is that "elements of the Constitution" DIDN'T apply against the states when the founding fathers wrote it. The Constitution was designed to be a document limiting the newly formed federal government and it was not designed to limit the powers of the individual states. The reason for this is that the individual states were independent nations unto themselves until the constitution was written. Their greatest concern was that the new federal government would usurp their power or the freedoms of their citizens.

They constitution was not designed to limit the authority of the states except those areas specifically enumerated to be given to the federal government.

So, in the 1780's it was not intended for the first amendment to prevent, for example, a state from having an official state religion. It was intended to prevent the federal government from doing so.

The same goes for the Second Amendment. The intention was to prevent the federal government from disarming the citizens because it would prevent the several states from being able to defend themselves from abuses by the federal government.

The 14th amendment was specifically written to prevent the states themselves from similarly removing rights of any U.S. citizen. As we said before the Bill of Rights didn't apply against state abuses so in the aftermath of the Civil war there were many "Black Codes" used to oppress former slaves and other abolitionists. The 14th amendment was written to extend the "privileges and immunities" of citizenship against ANY infringement rather than, as the BofR orginially did, simply against federal infringement. The phrase "prviliges and immunities" was specifically chosen because it was intended to overturn the terrible "Dred Scott" decision. The Court was essentially pissed that they were being legislatively overturned and took the first opportunity to gut that portion of the 14th amendment.

dantodd
06-22-2010, 2:13 PM
So we go from the NRA making a deal to protect themselves from having to disclose secret information... (not that there's anything wrong with that)
Then the NRA did it to kill the bill...
Then the NRA didn't really do ANYTHING - just suggested they opposed it.


Can we at least get a general consensus as to what exactly happened?

1) they opposed the bill because it would adversely effect the privacy of their membership
2) the bill was amended so that it wouldn't effect the NRA
3) the NRA no longer took any position on the bill because it was not a gun bill and it no longer effected the privacy of their membership
4) the NRA's initial opposition and the amendment brought the bill to the light of day and others started objecting so it died,

FirstFlight
06-22-2010, 2:22 PM
I am grateful for both NRA-ILA and Gura (and McDonald and others, obviously). I can't wait till next week.

+1 amen

hill billy
06-22-2010, 2:55 PM
Getting back to the OP, Alito wrote the opinion in Monsanto co, didn't he? So that only leaves Ginsberg.

http://scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Monsanto_Company_v._Geertson_Seed_ Farms

Gray Peterson
06-22-2010, 2:57 PM
Getting back to the OP, Alito wrote the opinion in Monsanto co, didn't he? So that only leaves Ginsberg.

http://scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Monsanto_Company_v._Geertson_Seed_ Farms

That's the April Sitting.

hill billy
06-22-2010, 2:59 PM
That's the April Sitting.

Oh, I get it. I did not realize it was broken up that way. Thanks for the clarification, Gray.

Window_Seat
06-22-2010, 3:25 PM
The NRA to the gun rights community is becoming more like what the Trucking Industry is to the mainstream society, they are becoming looked at as a necessary nuisance, and many GOs have begun to lose the understanding that without them, we become nothing more than a completely chaotic mess that would otherwise turn on one another over trivial issues.

Without the NRA, there would have been totalitarian gun confiscation a long time ago, and what happened after Katrina would look like a routine traffic stop with a warning being issued. Infact, the Katrina confiscation incident wouldn't have happened, because it would have happened long before.

People, gun control policy has become failed policy, further, it has become one which has revealed the real reason for that policy, and that is to make us into subjects by an overpowering and controlling Government against the people. We are here for one cause, and that is to end the era of gun control. Once we end that era, then we begin to end the era of overpowering & controlling Government against the people.

The NRA is sending you and me things in the mail because we need to know what is happening in our Govt that the news media isn't telling us. Pretending that it's a bad thing does not help our strategy.

Our first order of business for the day, and each day is safety for us & our families. That is our main concern, but it is not the concern of our lawmakers. They are concerned with taking as much power & control as possible so they can have it for themselves, not us. It's up to us to take that P&C back. The only way is to stick together, and the NRA, CGN/F, CRPA, JPFO, GOA, PPOSF, etc. will make that possible.

If we double the membership of everyone of these organizations above, all we have to do is go to a legislature the next time they want to make you register paper targets, and say "we won't support that, and neither will you", the only thing they will be able to do is put their head in a bucket of puke.

Erik.

FirstFlight
06-22-2010, 3:44 PM
The NRA to the gun rights community is becoming more like what the Trucking Industry is to the mainstream society, they are becoming looked at as a necessary nuisance, and many GOs have begun to lose the understanding that without them, we become nothing more than a completely chaotic mess that would otherwise turn on one another over trivial issues.

Without the NRA, there would have been totalitarian gun confiscation a long time ago, and what happened after Katrina would look like a routine traffic stop with a warning being issued. Infact, the Katrina confiscation incident wouldn't have happened, because it would have happened long before.

People, gun control policy has become failed policy, further, it has become one which has revealed the real reason for that policy, and that is to make us into subjects by an overpowering and controlling Government against the people. We are here for one cause, and that is to end the era of gun control. Once we end that era, then we begin to end the era of overpowering & controlling Government against the people.

The NRA is sending you and me things in the mail because we need to know what is happening in our Govt that the news media isn't telling us. Pretending that it's a bad thing does not help our strategy.

Our first order of business for the day, and each day is safety for us & our families. That is our main concern, but it is not the concern of our lawmakers. They are concerned with taking as much power & control as possible so they can have it for themselves, not us. It's up to us to take that P&C back. The only way is to stick together, and the NRA, CGN/F, CRPA, JPFO, GOA, PPOSF, etc. will make that possible.

If we double the membership of everyone of these organizations above, all we have to do is go to a legislature the next time they want to make you register paper targets, and say "we won't support that, and neither will you", the only thing they will be able to do is put their head in a bucket of puke.

Erik.

Very well said. Regardless of the organization one belongs to, we all have to stick together, supporting all others, and fight these SOB's as a group. Thats the only way we can win. Like the old union slogan sez......In Unity There Is Strength!

popeye4
06-22-2010, 4:01 PM
The NRA has primarily focused on the "legislative" side of things (hence the "Institute for Legislative Action"). Until recently, no one really wanted the courts to consider the 2nd Amendment, because the judiciary was heavily stacked towards the FDR-initiated "activist" side. After a couple of decades of attrition, the court balance has moved somewhat. So now it is no longer considered a waste of time (or worse) to argue a 2nd Amendment case.

The NRA isn't really set up for the judicial side of this battle, but they are well positioned to influence Congress and state legislatures, as well as elections. I don't mind that they took a back seat (or perhaps passenger seat?) on this, as long as they didn't get in the way. We now have a two front battle going on for gun rights, both legislative AND judicial. We can't afford to lose either, but let's hope the different specialists continue to cooperate and excel in their respective areas.

Nodda Duma
06-22-2010, 4:04 PM
The NRA to the gun rights community is becoming more like what the Trucking Industry is to the mainstream society, they are becoming looked at as a necessary nuisance, and many GOs have begun to lose the understanding that without them, we become nothing more than a completely chaotic mess that would otherwise turn on one another over trivial issues.

Without the NRA, there would have been totalitarian gun confiscation a long time ago, and what happened after Katrina would look like a routine traffic stop with a warning being issued. Infact, the Katrina confiscation incident wouldn't have happened, because it would have happened long before.

People, gun control policy has become failed policy, further, it has become one which has revealed the real reason for that policy, and that is to make us into subjects by an overpowering and controlling Government against the people. We are here for one cause, and that is to end the era of gun control. Once we end that era, then we begin to end the era of overpowering & controlling Government against the people.

The NRA is sending you and me things in the mail because we need to know what is happening in our Govt that the news media isn't telling us. Pretending that it's a bad thing does not help our strategy.

Our first order of business for the day, and each day is safety for us & our families. That is our main concern, but it is not the concern of our lawmakers. They are concerned with taking as much power & control as possible so they can have it for themselves, not us. It's up to us to take that P&C back. The only way is to stick together, and the NRA, CGN/F, CRPA, JPFO, GOA, PPOSF, etc. will make that possible.

If we double the membership of everyone of these organizations above, all we have to do is go to a legislature the next time they want to make you register paper targets, and say "we won't support that, and neither will you", the only thing they will be able to do is put their head in a bucket of puke.

Erik.


+1. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with specific positions that NRA may take. However, I still pay my dues because when the NRA talks, legislatures listen.

-Jason

hoffmang
06-22-2010, 4:11 PM
Getting back to the OP, Alito wrote the opinion in Monsanto co, didn't he? So that only leaves Ginsberg.

http://scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Monsanto_Company_v._Geertson_Seed_ Farms

The one other complicating factor is that Alito has written 6 or 7 opinions this term - which is usually the max. As such, the usual rule of one justice per month's sitting may get violated.

There is a small chance this comes out Thursday. However, the most likely scenario is that we get a fascinating set of opinions next Monday 6/28.

-Gene

corrupt
06-22-2010, 4:12 PM
The NRA to the gun rights community is becoming more like what the Trucking Industry is to the mainstream society, they are becoming looked at as a necessary nuisance, and many GOs have begun to lose the understanding that without them, we become nothing more than a completely chaotic mess that would otherwise turn on one another over trivial issues.

Without the NRA, there would have been totalitarian gun confiscation a long time ago, and what happened after Katrina would look like a routine traffic stop with a warning being issued. Infact, the Katrina confiscation incident wouldn't have happened, because it would have happened long before.

People, gun control policy has become failed policy, further, it has become one which has revealed the real reason for that policy, and that is to make us into subjects by an overpowering and controlling Government against the people. We are here for one cause, and that is to end the era of gun control. Once we end that era, then we begin to end the era of overpowering & controlling Government against the people.

The NRA is sending you and me things in the mail because we need to know what is happening in our Govt that the news media isn't telling us. Pretending that it's a bad thing does not help our strategy.

Our first order of business for the day, and each day is safety for us & our families. That is our main concern, but it is not the concern of our lawmakers. They are concerned with taking as much power & control as possible so they can have it for themselves, not us. It's up to us to take that P&C back. The only way is to stick together, and the NRA, CGN/F, CRPA, JPFO, GOA, PPOSF, etc. will make that possible.

If we double the membership of everyone of these organizations above, all we have to do is go to a legislature the next time they want to make you register paper targets, and say "we won't support that, and neither will you", the only thing they will be able to do is put their head in a bucket of puke.

Erik.

Thanks for taking the time to write that, I wholeheartedly agree.

Sinixstar
06-22-2010, 4:14 PM
The NRA to the gun rights community is becoming more like what the Trucking Industry is to the mainstream society, they are becoming looked at as a necessary nuisance, and many GOs have begun to lose the understanding that without them, we become nothing more than a completely chaotic mess that would otherwise turn on one another over trivial issues.


I think that assumes a few things incorrectly.
1) that all gun owners are in lock-step agreement about what they want, what they think is right, and what the purpose/function of the NRA (or similar organizations) should be.

2) That the "gun rights community" could agree on what to have for breakfast with or without the NRA in the first place. (See point #1)


Without the NRA, there would have been totalitarian gun confiscation a long time ago, and what happened after Katrina would look like a routine traffic stop with a warning being issued. Infact, the Katrina confiscation incident wouldn't have happened, because it would have happened long before.

Maybe - maybe not. Nobody knows for sure.


People, gun control policy has become failed policy. Further, it has become one which has been revealed to be a gigantic waste of taxpayer money. Money that could be spent on more important things right now.
it has become one which has revealed the real reason for that policy, and that is to make us into subjects by an overpowering and controlling Government against the people. We are here for one cause, and that is to end the era of gun control. Once we end that era, then we begin to end the era of overpowering & controlling Government against the people.


Fixed that for you.
Stick to the facts. You start going off about government control and government against the people - and you fit the stereotype of "gun nut".


The NRA is sending you and me things in the mail because we need to know what is happening in our Govt that the news media isn't telling us. Pretending that it's a bad thing does not help our strategy.

Our first order of business for the day, and each day is safety for us & our families. That is our main concern, but it is not the concern of our lawmakers. They are concerned with taking as much power & control as possible so they can have it for themselves, not us. It's up to us to take that P&C back. The only way is to stick together, and the NRA, CGN/F, CRPA, JPFO, GOA, PPOSF, etc. will make that possible.


Again - stereotypes...


If we double the membership of everyone of these organizations above, all we have to do is go to a legislature the next time they want to make you register paper targets, and say "we won't support that, and neither will you", the only thing they will be able to do is put their head in a bucket of puke.

Erik.


Sounds good to me.

fquinonez
06-22-2010, 5:48 PM
You are unclear on this. Please read the threads and why NRA did what it did.

Bill, for those of us that miss a post, can you [please post a link to the thread that you suggested we read for replies like this? Yu are a very knowledgable person when it comes to RKBA issues and I am constantly trying to learn, but there is so much information not only on this forum, but the Internet in general, that it is hard for many of us to find accurate relevant information some times.

Thanks for all you do!

Frank Q.

Paladin
06-22-2010, 8:19 PM
What I constantly find humorous is how many gunnies fawn over Gura (and/or Levy, SAF). I think they have forgotten -- or not realized -- that if it wasn't for Sandra Day O'Connor's husband's Alzheimer's Disease getting so bad that she decided to step down off of the Court to spend more time with him, she would have probably voted w/the antis and our side would have LOST Heller 5 to 4 and EVERYBODY here would be lumping Gura w/Gorski, saying "Gorski ****ed California for the last 10 years and now Gura just ****ed the entire nation for at least the next 50!"

dunndeal
06-22-2010, 8:24 PM
What I constantly find humorous is how many gunnies fawn over Gura (and/or Levy, SAF). I think they have forgotten -- or not realized -- that if it wasn't for Sandra Day O'Connor's husband's Alzheimer's Disease getting so bad that she decided to step down off of the Court to spend more time with him, she would have probably voted w/the antis and our side would have LOST Heller 5 to 4 and EVERYBODY here would be lumping Gura w/Gorski, saying "Gorski ****ed California for the last 10 years and now Gura just ****ed the entire nation for at least the next 50!"

And your point is?

Sinixstar
06-22-2010, 8:27 PM
And your point is?
That the line between idiot and genius is thin and largely based one's personal opinions. Oh, and that hindsight is always 20/20, which tends to blur that idiot/genius line...

dunndeal
06-22-2010, 8:41 PM
That the line between idiot and genius is thin and largely based one's personal opinions. Oh, and that hindsight is always 20/20, which tends to blur that idiot/genius line...

Thank you. I figured that was where you were coming from but I wanted to make sure.

anthonyca
06-22-2010, 8:51 PM
Its my understanding the NRA "back door deal" is what actually killed the bill, so I wouldn't be that harsh on the NRA for this.

The bill is not dead, these traitors never stop. Here is Campaign For Liberty talking good about the NRA staying in the fight against the bill and saying the bill may come back for a vote really soon. Stay vigilant on this.




June 22, 2010

Dear Friend in Liberty,

We won the first round of the battle over H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act (which really should be called the Establishment Protection Act), but we've received word that H.R. 5175 could be resurrected for a vote as soon as this Wednesday.

Your help is needed right away.* Even if you have already done so before please call and/or email your congressman immediately:

Contact Rep. Anna G. Eshoo at*(202) 225-8104 or click here to send an email.*

Last week, we saw a prime example of why the statists want to ram H.R. 5175 through the U.S. House as quickly as they can.
The vote on DISCLOSE was all set for last Friday, but thanks to your quick action and that of other C4L members and like-minded grassroots activists across the country, the outcry was so great that Pelosi had no choice but to cancel the vote.

Liberty-minded activists were especially incensed when it was revealed that the NRA and a few other huge insider organizations (like AARP and the Humane Society) got a special deal exempting them from this speech-killing legislation.

House leaders are close to silencing freedom-loving organizations like C4L so their anti-liberty agenda can sail to victory unopposed.

Call Rep. Anna G. Eshoo, at*(202) 225-8104 right away and INSIST Congress defend your right to freedom of speech and association.

This isn't the first time H.R. 5175 has been stalled.

The bill appeared to be going nowhere until the National Rifle Association bargained for an exemption for itself and a few other large groups.* The NRA helped put the bill on the fast track after agreeing to drop its opposition – leaving organizations like C4L -- and true liberty-minded Second Amendment organizations like National Association for Gun Rights and Gun Owners of America -- to fend for themselves and telling us to look out for own interests.

Free speech is everyone's interest.

Meanwhile, other organizations that later became exempted, like National Right to Work, have stayed in the fight and stuck to principle by pledging their opposition to the bill.

Contact the NRA headquarters at 1-800-672-3888 and their Legislative Action group at 1-800-392-8683 and urge them to join other exempted groups in opposing H.R. 5175.

The Establishment Protection Act could force C4L to hand over its donor lists for doing nothing more than holding our elected officials accountable for their positions and urging them to either support or oppose key legislation.

They want to know exactly who is opposing them and how much they're spending to do so.

C4L takes the trust you place in us very seriously, and your privacy should not be sacrificed by a deeply unpopular Congress to score cheap political points in an election year.

You see, Speaker Pelosi and the Obama White House are doing their best to spin this as a bill to help the little guy.* But like the rest of their playbook, the Establishment Protection Act will only enhance their power, entrench their favorite special interests (like exempting the unions from some of the bill's key provisions), and insulate them from accountability.

I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of watching statists shred the First Amendment.
Please, call Rep. Anna G. Eshoo,at*(202) 225-8104 immediately and demand the House defend the Constitution and reject H.R. 5175.

And be sure to call the NRA headquarters at 1-800-672-3888 and their Legislative Action group at 1-800-392-8683 and let them know how you feel about their move to stab freedom organizations in the back.* Urge them to drop the deal and stand with these other organizations in opposing the Establishment Protection Act.

Encouraged by our victory last week, let's turn up the pressure and make sure Congress hears us LOUD and CLEAR – while we still can.

In Liberty,




John Tate

President

P.S.* The statists are fighting with everything they have.* Although this is an excellent sign that our efforts are working, Campaign for Liberty cannot stay in the battle without your continued support.* If you are able, please chip in $10 or $25 today toward C4L's efforts so we can defeat the Establishment Protection Act and any other bills to trample on our First Amendment freedoms.
This message was intended for: anthony77ca@aol.com
You were added to the system October 1, 2009. For more information
click here.
Update your preferences | Unsubscribe

Meplat
06-22-2010, 9:45 PM
When you have been tossed under the buss from time ti time for 40 years you will understand.

I have only been on this forum for a short time but I am surprized how many anti-NRA folks there are here. I think most of the anti's are that way out of ignorance of the facts. Or are they working for the Brady Bunch? I think Roadrunner sez it better than I can. See Above

FreedomIsNotFree
06-22-2010, 10:15 PM
The one other complicating factor is that Alito has written 6 or 7 opinions this term - which is usually the max. As such, the usual rule of one justice per month's sitting may get violated.

There is a small chance this comes out Thursday. However, the most likely scenario is that we get a fascinating set of opinions next Monday 6/28.

-Gene

Are you confident enough to make reservations at a particular steakhouse? :)

383green
06-22-2010, 10:22 PM
Are you confident enough to make reservations at a particular steakhouse? :)

Please say it's Jocko's, in Nipomo! :drool5:

Window_Seat
06-22-2010, 10:34 PM
Are you confident enough to make reservations at a particular steakhouse? :)

House of Prime Rib!!!!!!! :drool5::drool5:

Erik.

thayne
06-22-2010, 10:36 PM
When you have been tossed under the buss from time ti time for 40 years you will understand.

My biggest gripe with the NRA when I was a member was they spent more money mailing me asking for money than I spent for my membership in the first place. I dont know if they still do that, but I was so annoyed I didnt renew.

BigDogatPlay
06-22-2010, 10:41 PM
My biggest gripe with the NRA when I was a member was they spent more money mailing me asking for money than I spent for my membership in the first place. I dont know if they still do that, but I was so annoyed I didnt renew.

They do, but you can opt out of receiving solicitations by doing a web form on the NRA site.

jdberger
06-22-2010, 11:38 PM
Mmmm....Izzy's. I'm in.

FreedomIsNotFree
06-23-2010, 12:24 AM
Mmmm....Izzy's. I'm in.

Yeah, after the last few years here, I have a strange association between great steaks and 2A victories.

Maestro Pistolero
06-23-2010, 12:35 AM
That the line between idiot and genius is thin and largely based one's personal opinions. Oh, and that hindsight is always 20/20, which tends to blur that idiot/genius line...Except that in this case, Gorski really is an incompetent egomaniac, and Gura really is a brilliant attorney. There is no blurring of any line between those two individuals, IMO.

FreedomIsNotFree
06-23-2010, 1:16 AM
My biggest gripe with the NRA when I was a member was they spent more money mailing me asking for money than I spent for my membership in the first place. I dont know if they still do that, but I was so annoyed I didnt renew.

I hear you, but did you know you can request to be taken off the regular mailing list? Although the sheer volume of mailers can appear to be a waste, the NRA wouldn't continue that practice unless their efforts, statistically, literally paid off.

FirstFlight
06-23-2010, 3:50 PM
My biggest gripe with the NRA when I was a member was they spent more money mailing me asking for money than I spent for my membership in the first place. I dont know if they still do that, but I was so annoyed I didnt renew.

OK....I am a long time member (Benefactor-Life) of the NRA. I get the same mail all the other members get. I do what all the other members do. I throw the damn stuff out! From time to time I do send them a few bucks if I feel the cause is right. But I throw the rest of the mail out. You have to understand, the NRA is a non-profit organization and they depend on donations to keep all the programs going. The program I particularlly like now is giving one year full NRA memberships to all members of the military serving in Iraq and Afganistan. Would you particpate in that program? If so, renew your membership now and get with the PROGRAM!!!

Gray Peterson
06-23-2010, 4:06 PM
As stated, you folks can always call up the NRA Membership desk or email them and ask them to stop sending you mail. They actually appreciate it as it means they can pay less postage.

stag1500
06-23-2010, 4:48 PM
The one other complicating factor is that Alito has written 6 or 7 opinions this term - which is usually the max. As such, the usual rule of one justice per month's sitting may get violated.

It kinda has to, doesn't it? There's no way in hell Ginsberg is going to write the majority opinion on this one.

Sinixstar
06-23-2010, 5:25 PM
@anthonyca


If you think the DISCLOSE act is a bad piece of legislation - fine. to some extent, I agree.
However, I have a problem when people start draping it in this cloth of "freedom and liberty" like the DISCLOSE act is somehow taking away your freedoms.

The fact of the matter is - if i make a political contribution - it becomes public information. If you know where to look, and you know my name - you can find out how much money I've given to what organizations. As an individual - i have no protections there. I don't have the NRA standing up and fighting saying that information should be private.

However, these organizations get the protection of being able to remain secretive about where the the money comes from and how it moves around. They enjoy protections that individuals do not. If anything - this (the DISCLOSE act) puts those organizations on the same playing field as you or I. In theory, i don't see any problems with that. I have a hard time accepting that organizations and corporations should be granted some level of privilege that the individual is not.

Now - again - if you don't like the premise of that - that's fine, and that's your prerogative. Just don't try to beat me over the head with this 'individual liberty' garbage. It's not about individual freedoms or liberties, it's about corporations and groups sponsored by corporations being able to make it difficult to follow the money.

Personally - i'm mostly apathetic about it. I'm mildly leaning against it - simply because i think it's not going to accomplish anything, and there's more pressing issues we should be dealing with.

Sinixstar
06-23-2010, 5:37 PM
It kinda has to, doesn't it? There's no way in hell Ginsberg is going to write the majority opinion on this one.

Unless Ginsberg and some combination of justices came together and decided to incorporate via P/I and Alito and everyone else disagree. That's one way Ginsberg could write the majority opinion...

Now whether or not that's LIKELY is another story....

gravedigger
06-23-2010, 5:51 PM
I do not believe for one second that the SCotUS has the balls needed to rule on McDonald V. Chicago correctly.

Kharn
06-23-2010, 6:37 PM
The one other complicating factor is that Alito has written 6 or 7 opinions this term - which is usually the max. As such, the usual rule of one justice per month's sitting may get violated.

There is a small chance this comes out Thursday. However, the most likely scenario is that we get a fascinating set of opinions next Monday 6/28.

-Gene
Opinion count as of today:
JR 6
JS 6
AS 7
AK 7
CT 6
RG 6
SB 9
SA 7
SS 8

There are 11 opinions outstanding, with the 3 honest services cases possibly to be combined into one opinion. IIRC the Court tries to stop at 4 opinions per session, so a third day (beyond Thurs and Mon) may be required. Bilski for second-to-last and McDonald for last opinion of the term is my prediction.

I do not believe for one second that the SCotUS has the balls needed to rule on McDonald V. Chicago correctly. Reread the oral argument transcript, the Court verbally destroyed Chicago's position during oral argument. The Court did not like Gura's argument but they hated Chicago's, and Clement was greeted as an old friend.

yellowfin
06-23-2010, 6:44 PM
Does anyone actually place monetary (or ammo) bets on this?

orangeusa
06-23-2010, 6:53 PM
Wouldn't that be illegal? J/K

N6ATF
06-23-2010, 7:45 PM
I do not believe for one second that the SCotUS has the balls needed to rule on McDonald V. Chicago correctly.

If they want to leave D.C. ever again, they have no choice but to incorporate the 2A. Not incorporating means there's nothing stopping the government(s) from banning all weapons nationwide (outside of D.C.) Expect massive civil disobedience escalating into the second civil war if this were to be implemented on such a massive scale.

Gray Peterson
06-23-2010, 8:43 PM
If they want to leave D.C. ever again, they have no choice but to incorporate the 2A. Not incorporating means there's nothing stopping the government(s) from banning all weapons nationwide (outside of D.C.) Expect massive civil disobedience escalating into the second civil war if this were to be implemented on such a massive scale.

It's called 44 states having a state RKBA provision (though about 5 of them are ineffective).

N6ATF
06-23-2010, 8:58 PM
Provisions which could easily be exposed as toothless if the respective governments saw they could print them on toilet paper as with CA's Article 1, Section 1.

wildhawker
06-23-2010, 9:34 PM
Provisions which could easily be exposed as toothless if the respective governments saw they could print them on toilet paper as with CA's Article 1, Section 1.

The states Gray refers to have much more direct protection of arms than Cal. Const. A1S1.

N6ATF
06-23-2010, 9:48 PM
Alright, so off the top of my head. Washington and Pennsylvania. 2 of the 5 ineffective state RKBA provisions? IIRC, both states also have official oppression prohibitions and preemption, yet cities and/or counties go ahead and violate anyway (Vancouver, Philadelphia).

Gray Peterson
06-23-2010, 10:51 PM
Alright, so off the top of my head. Washington and Pennsylvania. 2 of the 5 ineffective state RKBA provisions? IIRC, both states also have official oppression prohibitions and preemption, yet cities and/or counties go ahead and violate anyway (Vancouver, Philadelphia).

Wrong on Washington's count. We were able to get Seattle's gun ban struck down (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2010/02/12/2011061727.pdf). Considering I was one of the plaintiffs in that case I think I can speak to some authority. On top of that, our state supreme court recently applied the 14th amendment (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/State%20v%20Sieyes.pdf) to the state of Washington, using this as a closing sentence: Accordingly we keep our powder dry on this issue for another day.

The states with currently ineffective RKBA provisions are:

Massachusetts
Colorado (My case had to be filed in federal court as the judges there are just too anti-gun)
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Kansas (though there's going to be an amendment to the voters to strengthen it and overturn "collective rights there)

Window_Seat
06-23-2010, 11:34 PM
Wrong on Washington's count. We were able to get Seattle's gun ban struck down (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2010/02/12/2011061727.pdf). Considering I was one of the plaintiffs in that case I think I can speak to some authority. On top of that, our state supreme court recently applied the 14th amendment (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/State%20v%20Sieyes.pdf) to the state of Washington, using this as a closing sentence: Accordingly we keep our powder dry on this issue for another day.

The states with currently ineffective RKBA provisions are:

Massachusetts
Colorado (My case had to be filed in federal court as the judges there are just too anti-gun)
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Kansas (though there's going to be an amendment to the voters to strengthen it and overturn "collective rights there)

Should Hawaii be added to that list?

Erik.

Sinixstar
06-24-2010, 12:06 AM
Wrong on Washington's count. We were able to get Seattle's gun ban struck down (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2010/02/12/2011061727.pdf). Considering I was one of the plaintiffs in that case I think I can speak to some authority. On top of that, our state supreme court recently applied the 14th amendment (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/State%20v%20Sieyes.pdf) to the state of Washington, using this as a closing sentence: Accordingly we keep our powder dry on this issue for another day.

The states with currently ineffective RKBA provisions are:

Massachusetts
Colorado (My case had to be filed in federal court as the judges there are just too anti-gun)
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Kansas (though there's going to be an amendment to the voters to strengthen it and overturn "collective rights there)

If court was like the internet, SCOTUS could come back tomorrow - hold up a copy of the document you linked, and just say "THIS".

Seriously - the dissenting opinion was dissenting because the majority declined to go so far as to say strict scrutiny should be applied, and basically made the argument that we're willing to send kids under 18 off to war, we damn well should respect their rights when they're here at home.

How freakin cool is that?

N6ATF
06-24-2010, 12:23 AM
Wrong on Washington's count. We were able to get Seattle's gun ban struck down (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2010/02/12/2011061727.pdf). Considering I was one of the plaintiffs in that case I think I can speak to some authority. On top of that, our state supreme court recently applied the 14th amendment (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/State%20v%20Sieyes.pdf) to the state of Washington, using this as a closing sentence: Accordingly we keep our powder dry on this issue for another day.

I guess it's just official oppression that WA is impotent on enforcement then. Nickels was never charged with RCW 9A.80.010, was he? Statute of limitations is probably up for him, but Vancouver's bastards are on deck now.

RRangel
06-24-2010, 12:29 AM
@anthonyca


If you think the DISCLOSE act is a bad piece of legislation - fine. to some extent, I agree.
However, I have a problem when people start draping it in this cloth of "freedom and liberty" like the DISCLOSE act is somehow taking away your freedoms.

The fact of the matter is - if i make a political contribution - it becomes public information. If you know where to look, and you know my name - you can find out how much money I've given to what organizations. As an individual - i have no protections there. I don't have the NRA standing up and fighting saying that information should be private.

However, these organizations get the protection of being able to remain secretive about where the the money comes from and how it moves around. They enjoy protections that individuals do not. If anything - this (the DISCLOSE act) puts those organizations on the same playing field as you or I. In theory, i don't see any problems with that. I have a hard time accepting that organizations and corporations should be granted some level of privilege that the individual is not.

Now - again - if you don't like the premise of that - that's fine, and that's your prerogative. Just don't try to beat me over the head with this 'individual liberty' garbage. It's not about individual freedoms or liberties, it's about corporations and groups sponsored by corporations being able to make it difficult to follow the money.

Personally - i'm mostly apathetic about it. I'm mildly leaning against it - simply because i think it's not going to accomplish anything, and there's more pressing issues we should be dealing with.

This will conveniently get in the way of the grass roots who have been some of biggest congressional critics. It's practically slapping you in the face. If there's disclosure then why would we need something that creates hurdles for grass roots?

The smaller organizations that are being discouraged from speaking out. You're damn right it's a violation of free speech and that is certainly a liberty issue.


"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."

What of the blogosphere? Good old Chuck Schumer would just love to shut critics up. Big media corporations are surprisingly exempt. Well, maybe not so surprising given the bill's anti-freedom sponsors.

press1280
06-24-2010, 3:30 AM
Should Hawaii be added to that list?

Erik.
Maybe. I'm not aware of any challenges to their law based on their RKBA state amendment(which is identical to the wording of the 2A). The states mentioned above were construed as "collective" rights. I'm wondering even if McDonald were not happening, if the states would have to re-examine their precedents in light of Heller.
I'd add in IL to that list because of "subject to the police power). CT has confirmed an individual has a liberty interest in obtaining a CCW.I may take them off that list. The others I'd agree with.

Kharn
06-24-2010, 5:16 AM
If they want to leave D.C. ever again, they have no choice but to incorporate the 2A. Not incorporating means there's nothing stopping the government(s) from banning all weapons nationwide (outside of D.C.) Expect massive civil disobedience escalating into the second civil war if this were to be implemented on such a massive scale.:TFH: :icon_bs:

dantodd
06-24-2010, 6:46 AM
However, the most likely scenario is that we get a fascinating set of opinions

I think nearly everyone would agree with that prediction. I suspect we will see one majority/plurality opinion and two concurring plus maybe one dissenting.

Should be lots of reading and because of the fractured set of opinions we are likely to get I wouldn't be surprised if there are MANY unanswered questions and lots of conflicting hints at what the court might do in future cases.

Cnynrat
06-24-2010, 7:52 AM
Question for the court watchers: When a particular Justice writes an opinion is he/she documenting the opinion of the majority, or are they given some degree of latitude to write the opinion as they see fit? I'm trying to understand a little better how the court works, and what is the likely significance of one Justice or another writing an opinion.

Thanks.

Window_Seat
06-24-2010, 7:57 AM
Question for the court watchers: When a particular Justice writes an opinion is he/she documenting the opinion of the majority, or are they given some degree of latitude to write the opinion as they see fit? I'm trying to understand a little better how the court works, and what is the likely significance of one Justice or another writing an opinion.

Thanks.

DING DING DING, We have the winner question of the day (and we aren't even halfway through)!!:thumbsup:

Erik; waiting for the answer.

Maestro Pistolero
06-24-2010, 9:04 AM
DING DING DING, We have the winner question of the day (and we aren't even halfway through)!!:thumbsup:

Erik; waiting for the answer.

Yes. good question. My guess is that, since they describe the Justice as "writing for the majority" that there must be concurrence among them.

Kharn
06-24-2010, 9:14 AM
After oral arguments the Court meets behind closed doors to discuss their opinions. A vote is taken, with the senior Justice from each side picking who will write the opinion. Dissenters may add extra opinions, depending on their agreement with the assigned dissent. The majority opinion can lose a backer and become a minority, Stevens was assigned to write the dissent in Betamax in the 80s with a 5-4 split, he convinced two Justices to switch and his dissent became a 6-3 majority.

1911whore
06-24-2010, 10:08 AM
Maybe I am acting dumb but I dont see what a lawsuit in the city of chicago has to do with us in CA?

bulgron
06-24-2010, 10:10 AM
Maybe I am acting dumb but I dont see what a lawsuit in the city of chicago has to do with us in CA?

It will extend Second Amendment protections to the states, so that we can sue the State of California over some of our more egregious gun laws.

Liberty1
06-24-2010, 10:11 AM
Maybe I am acting dumb but I dont see what a lawsuit in the city of chicago has to do with us in CA?

Well, I guess you're about to learn. Ask yourself how does a US Supreme Court decision effect CA.

Sinixstar
06-24-2010, 10:15 AM
Maybe I am acting dumb but I dont see what a lawsuit in the city of chicago has to do with us in CA?

Chicago is the defendant, simply because it's a Chicago resident seeking protection under the 2nd against unconstitutional Chicago law.

However, it's not about a 'lawsuit in chicago'. It's about whether or not the 2nd applies to the states.

"The states" happens to include California, even though California isn't a named party in the case...

NiteQwill
06-24-2010, 10:18 AM
Maybe I am acting dumb but I dont see what a lawsuit in the city of chicago has to do with us in CA?

Where have you been the past year? :eek:

1911whore
06-24-2010, 10:24 AM
I get it now.

I should be more involved in lawsuits and law making and all of that but answering the question of "where have you been the last year" My answer is VERY BUSY fighting court battles of my own in regards to custody for the last 4 yrs and remain victorious so honestly the last thing on my mind is to read up on other court proceedings. This one is important and I am glad it cought my eye, looks like the original motion was filed in 2008 and initially was decided unfavorably, this is the supreme court appeal decision we are now waiting on. I am keeping my fingers crossed.

However this doesnt mean anything will change for US californians immediately, there would simply be an influx of lawsuits IN the state to reverse previous decisions, am I getting it?

383green
06-24-2010, 10:25 AM
Where have you been the past year? :eek:

Probably in a different CGN forum, is my guess. I rarely know what's going on outside of the 2A forum, and I'll hazard a guess that there are plenty of CGN members who are most active in different forums and haven't been following the 2A forum closely.

Sinixstar
06-24-2010, 10:27 AM
I get it now.

I should be more involved in lawsuits and law making and all of that but answering the question of "where have you been the last year" My answer is VERY BUSY fighting court battles of my own in regards to custody for the last 4 yrs and remain victorious so honestly the last thing on my mind is to read up on other court proceedings. This one is important and I am glad it cought my eye, looks like the original motion was filed in 2008 and initially was decided unfavorably, this is the supreme court appeal decision we are now waiting on. I am keeping my fingers crossed.

However this doesnt mean anything will change for US californians immediately, there would simply be an influx of lawsuits IN the state to reverse previous decisions, am I getting it?

Not to be rude - but spend some time reading some of the other McDonald threads on the forum. You've got a lot of catching up to do. As much as we all love talking about the subject - for every question we answer, you're going to have at least one or two more - and they've all been covered repeatedly in the last bunch of months...

bulgron
06-24-2010, 10:28 AM
However this doesnt mean anything will change for US californians immediately, there would simply be an influx of lawsuits IN the state to reverse previous decisions, am I getting it?

Yes, you are getting it.

We have a full magazine of lawsuits loaded and ready to fire once we have the McDonald decision. Expect the worst of our gun laws to change dramatically in this state over the next 24 months after McDonald is decided.

383green
06-24-2010, 10:30 AM
My answer is VERY BUSY fighting court battles of my own in regards to custody for the last 4 yrs

Good luck with your custody battle!

However this doesnt mean anything will change for US californians immediately, there would simply be an influx of lawsuits IN the state to reverse previous decisions, am I getting it?

Yes, you're catching on quickly. What you may not already know is that some of those lawsuits in CA have already been filed and are already waiting for the McDonald ruling. Some key ones are Nordyke (a CA case about 2nd Amendment incorporation), Peña (challenging the handgun roster) and Sykes (challenging may-issue CCW). More details can be found here if you want to catch up:

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page#Important_Cases

Maestro Pistolero
06-24-2010, 10:40 AM
Exciting times. I keep having fantasies that the knee-jerk opposition to P.O.I. incorporation at orals was just Scalia playing devil's advocate. I have a hard time believing that the justices would take the ripest opportunity to restore P.O.I. that they will ever likely encounter, and simply write it off.

I guess a win is a win. But it does seem like P.O.I incorporation, rather than due process incorporation, would give broader ground to strict scrutiny for 2A.

This is going to be a VERY interesting read.

bulgron
06-24-2010, 10:53 AM
Exciting times. I keep having fantasies that the knee-jerk opposition to P.O.I. incorporation at orals was just Scalia playing devil's advocate. I have a hard time believing that the justices would take the ripest opportunity to restore P.O.I. that they will ever likely encounter, and simply write it off.

I was under the impression at one time that Scalia was an advocate in favor of restoring PorI. Or, at least, he once was. Was I wrong about that?

Anyway, I share your fantasy.


I guess a win is a win. But it does seem like P.O.I incorporation, rather than due process incorporation, would give broader ground to strict scrutiny for 2A.

In a perfect world, "Shall Not Be Infringed" would be all we need to achieve strict scrutiny. It greatly angers me that those words might not be enough to get us the strongest protections that the courts can offer for a constitutionally-protected right.


This is going to be a VERY interesting read.

I'm pretty sure that I'm going to come down with the SCOTUS flu on Monday, and end up calling in sick.

Maestro Pistolero
06-24-2010, 11:13 AM
I was under the impression at one time that Scalia was an advocate in favor of restoring PorI. Or, at least, he once was. Was I wrong about that?
It's not clear to me whether he actually likes P.O.I., or merely detests the D.P. end-run that was used to contrive the selective incorporation doctrine.

He said at the McDonald orals "even I have acquiesced" (to DP-based selective incorporation). It may be a twisted, hand-sewn alternative to the real thing, but it's so steeped in precedent now that unwinding it may be impossible in the mind of Scalia.

Ed_in_Sac
06-24-2010, 11:23 AM
I think we will get something even if it is not as overwhelming a victory as many have hoped for (hope it is a good one though).

Either way, I hope someone has a "illegal" video camera trained on the Hatriot Mayor Daley when he learns of the results. Hope the cameraman has a armored "clamshell" to thwart of the Mayor's bayonet advances :-)

I would pay to see THAT show!!! :-0

Window_Seat
06-24-2010, 11:25 AM
1911Whore:

If you get the time to, read the oral arguments in the McDonald v. Chicago case. That reading alone can give you a very good idea of what to expect, as well as what has been on the front burner(s) for quite a while.

SCOTUS Oral Arguments of McDonald v. Chicago (http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf)

Here are the audio transcripts available in mp3 (http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=08-4241_001.mp3) from the Seventh Circuit arguments in NRA v. Chicago. I put it on my iPod, and I still listen to it when I can.

A few other good ones to listen to are the Nordyke oral arguments:

(ETA to correct and switch the 2 audio files correctly)

Nordyke v. King (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000002641)

Nordyke v. King en banc (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000003933)

Additionally, my signature below contains info on 5 cases (including Nordyke) that are of good reading. The Heller decision (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf) is 150 pages +, but well worth reading as well, so if you get the time, it's always strongly advised to take a look at all these cases.

Erik.

BigDogatPlay
06-24-2010, 9:21 PM
Exciting times. I keep having fantasies that the knee-jerk opposition to P.O.I. incorporation at orals was just Scalia playing devil's advocate. I have a hard time believing that the justices would take the ripest opportunity to restore P.O.I. that they will ever likely encounter, and simply write it off.

You may be right, but the whole concept of privileges or immunities seems to scare the pee water out of elites on both sides of the intellectual aisle.

The leftist elite is afraid of our guns, and the rightist elite is afraid of Pandora's Box being opened by the 'reinstatement' of P or I.

Josh Blackman and Ilya Shapiro wrote a brilliant paper on the entire pandora conundrum around the time of the oral arguments in McDonald. It's long, but exceptionally well written IMO.

Read it here. (http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/ilya-shapiro-keeping-pandoras-box-sealed.pdf)

CALATRAVA
06-24-2010, 10:01 PM
Probably in a different CGN forum, is my guess. I rarely know what's going on outside of the 2A forum, and I'll hazard a guess that there are plenty of CGN members who are most active in different forums and haven't been following the 2A forum closely.

That's a funny perspective to me.

2a is the only forum I read. :cool:

GuyW
06-24-2010, 10:41 PM
Chicago is the defendant, simply because it's a Chicago resident seeking protection under the 2nd against unconstitutional Chicago law.


IIRC, Chicago is the defendant because their law is the same as Washington DC's - no new / additional issues for SCOTUS to go sideways with....

.