PDA

View Full Version : Does SCOTUS anticipate Chicago's resistance to McDonald ruling?


stag1500
06-24-2010, 1:17 PM
Just read this article from the AP: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hIWgd9nlX0S5df61V1VxuPif8gXgD9GHQOCG0

Chicago not done fighting if court strikes gun ban
By DON BABWIN and JESSICA GRESKO (AP) – 1 hour ago

CHICAGO — If the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Chicago's handgun ban, the city will likely do what Washington, D.C., did when its own ban was overturned two years ago.

D.C. put in place all sorts of regulations and restrictions to make it tougher to buy guns and easier for police to know who has them. And since the D.C. ban was lifted, just over 800 guns have been registered there.

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley won't say specifically what plans he has in mind if the Supreme Court rules against the city next week. But many say that a ruling favorable to gun rights advocates will lead to a new round of legislation — and lawsuits.

Daley told The Associated Press recently that the city won't just "roll over" if the high court rules against it.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Is it possible for SCOTUS to word their decision in McDonald v. Chicago in order to circumvent any resistance from the city of Chicago?

stitchnicklas
06-24-2010, 1:20 PM
i hope so......

Full Clip
06-24-2010, 1:21 PM
Given the roadblocks that D.C. has thrown up, I suspect they may.

N6ATF
06-24-2010, 1:32 PM
They need to order Daley and his minions jailed for contempt right now, and throw away the key.

Bhobbs
06-24-2010, 1:32 PM
Is it possible there could be legal action taken directly against the mayor if he signs into law a bill that goes against what the SCOTUS rules?

DVSmith
06-24-2010, 1:37 PM
The court seemed like they intended for states and local government to work out what the court felt would be reasonable restrictions. That guarantees that some will go too far or not far enough and some party will take them to court and the courts will work through what they will live with and what they won't.

I don't think anyone expects restrictive communities to suddenly roll over. I also don't think anyone expects this to make us pro 2A people instantly happy. It is going to take time and court cases to work this out. In the meantime, I don't expect to see radical changes.

stag1500
06-24-2010, 1:42 PM
In the meantime, I don't expect to see radical changes.

Yeah, but it's going to be pretty radical if Mayor Daley throws SCOTUS a middle finger after they rule that Chicago's handgun ban is unconstitutional. According to the article, that's what it sounds like.

DVSmith
06-24-2010, 1:49 PM
Yeah, but it's going to be pretty radical if Mayor Daley throws SCOTUS a middle finger after they rule that Chicago's handgun ban is unconstitutional. According to the article, that's what it sounds like.

I don't like Daley, but I don't think he is completely stupid either. If he does just flip off the court, he likely has a reason for doing so, either political or legal in nature.

dunndeal
06-24-2010, 1:55 PM
Any public figure capable of telling a reporter he's going to shove a bayonet tipped rifle up his butt is capable of doing any irrational act.

stag1500
06-24-2010, 1:56 PM
I don't like Daley, but I don't think he is completely stupid either. If he does just flip off the court, he likely has a reason for doing so, either political or legal in nature.

True. There is a fine line between stupidity and megalomania. I think Daley falls under the latter category.

nick
06-24-2010, 1:58 PM
Has SCOTUS ever held anyone in comtempt? Has anyone ever asked SCOTUS to hold someone in contempt of their decision? How does one go about asking them?

bruss01
06-24-2010, 2:30 PM
Likely Chicago will try what congress did after the 1000 foot school zone restriction was declared unconstitutional. They simply reworded it slightly and called it a "new" law, which no one has yet sued to find unconstitutional. They will keep wiggling and weaseling until they are completely painted into a corner... any leeway, loophole of technicality they will take advantage of. And of course I wouldn't put it past them to use flagrant disregard also.

bulgron
06-24-2010, 2:33 PM
Likely Chicago will try what congress did after the 1000 foot school zone restriction was declared unconstitutional. They simply reworded it slightly and called it a "new" law, which no one has yet sued to find unconstitutional. They will keep wiggling and weaseling until they are completely painted into a corner... any leeway, loophole of technicality they will take advantage of. And of course I wouldn't put it past them to use flagrant disregard also.

Street justice too. I would expect that any civilian caught carrying a concealed weapon in Chicago, even if legal (as forced by a future son-of-sykes case), to at least take a beating from Chicago PD. What's a little rubber hose amongst tyrants when it comes time to uphold King Daley's every tiny little whim?

IGOTDIRT4U
06-24-2010, 3:33 PM
SCOTUS decisions are not written to be prospective. They can't be. It would be impossible.

But, they limitations they put into their decisions generally anticipate, based upon the arguments that got the cases there, the likely rounds of lawsuits coming after their decision.

In short, you won't see anything specific in their decision, which is one reason why we hope for strict scrutiny. As DV says, expect a long fight.

Ed_in_Sac
06-24-2010, 3:48 PM
OP, thanks for the post.

Municipalities not following SCOTUS rulings kinda empowers States like MO and TN which have argued for State's Rights on manufacturing guns (oversimplification).

Just how can the anti's hold Princess Daley up as the second coming when they bash States for doing something which, IMO, is at least within the spirit of the BofR? At least not in direct contempt of court?

Still, I really would love to see HD video of Daley foaming at the mouth, clutching his bayonet when the verdict is read.

Ed_in_Sac
06-24-2010, 3:51 PM
I don't like Daley, but I don't think he is completely stupid either. If he does just flip off the court, he likely has a reason for doing so, either political or legal in nature.

Which could be making the claim that our courts are ineffective in stopping violence and asking for the World Court to step in. Not that I give a twit what they have to say. But if the WC chastises the US for not controlling firearms then it does give certain Senators an excuse to sign a treaty on arms control. Just my suspicions, hope I am wayyyy off base on this one!

spsellars
06-24-2010, 4:16 PM
Has SCOTUS ever held anyone in comtempt? Has anyone ever asked SCOTUS to hold someone in contempt of their decision? How does one go about asking them?

It's happened at least once that I know of - US v Shipp was a contempt of court case against a southern Sheriff for allowing a lynching after SCOTUS ordered a stay of execution for Ed Johnson.

IIRC, the US AG had to bring the charge against Shipp though, so not sure that would ever happen in this case, with the current AG.

bulgron
06-24-2010, 4:26 PM
Which could be making the claim that our courts are ineffective in stopping violence and asking for the World Court to step in. Not that I give a twit what they have to say. But if the WC chastises the US for not controlling firearms then it does give certain Senators an excuse to sign a treaty on arms control. Just my suspicions, hope I am wayyyy off base on this one!

I think you're way off.

While I am by no means an expert on all things Daley, I've made certain observations about both him and Chicago that could explain why he's about to step on a landmine:

1. Daley isn't particularly smart. Oh, he's wiley enough in a political sense all right. But it took him multiple tries to pass the bar. My guess is that constitutional theory isn't exactly his strong suit.

2. Daley is pretty arrogant. Look at the way he ignored federal regulators and bulldozed an airport in the middle of the night. He probably thinks he can do whatever he wants and get away with it.

3. Daley in particular and Chicago in general seem to think of themselves as a kingdom unto themselves. I don't have any one thing to point at for this, but it is nevertheless a general sense that I have of Chicago. They give me the sense that they don't think the rules apply to them.

4. The entire political stack from dog catcher all the way up to Daley is corrupt as hell. When the entire fish tank that you swim in is dirty, murky and toxic, not only might you think that all the fish tanks everywhere are the same way, but it might not even enter your head that a fish tank could be any other way. As a consequence, Daley might not even have considered the possibility that an ***-whuppin' is coming his way if he defies SCOTUS.

5. Obama is from Chicago and might owe Daley a favor or two. Like, say, a presidential pardon if the courts do put a smack-down on Daley. If so, this gives Daley an Ace-up-his-sleeve, and so he might think he can literally do anything and get away with it.

All of which adds up to one hell of a loose canon.

As I said, I'm pretty much a remote observer of Chicago & Daley, so I could be wrong on one or all of these points. But everything I see Daley saying suggests to me an arrogance founded of the belief that he can't be touched.

I hope he actually has that worldview, because not only will the ensuing drama be highly entertaining, but it might serve as a warning for our own set of highly arrogant politicians as to what can happen if they start defying federal authority.

press1280
06-24-2010, 4:33 PM
Striking down registration would make it extremely difficult for Daley to try any DC-post-Heller moves.

valkylrie
06-24-2010, 4:38 PM
Dailey has proven he has no respect for Federal Goverment... Why would you expect anything different?

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-1-157x.html

BlindRacer
06-24-2010, 4:41 PM
5. Obama is from Chicago and might owe Daley a favor or two. Like, say, a presidential pardon if the courts do put a smack-down on Daley. If so, this gives Daley an Ace-up-his-sleeve, and so he might think he can literally do anything and get away with it.

Can a presidential pardon get someone out of a SCOTUS decision? The president isn't the king. He is just one branch to the government. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the president has any control over a SCOTUS decision.

Or maybe you're just saying that any punishment he may be given, the pres will get him out of. In which case, sure...so nevermind.

stag1500
06-24-2010, 4:43 PM
IIRC, the US AG had to bring the charge against Shipp though, so not sure that would ever happen in this case, with the current AG.

I seriously doubt Eric Holder is going to send federal marshals to knock on Daley's door. Not unless he is somehow compelled to do so.

bulgron
06-24-2010, 4:45 PM
Can a presidential pardon get someone out of a SCOTUS decision? The president isn't the king. He is just one branch to the government. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the president has any control over a SCOTUS decision.

Or maybe you're just saying that any punishment he may be given, the pres will get him out of. In which case, sure...so nevermind.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

stag1500
06-24-2010, 4:46 PM
Or maybe you're just saying that any punishment he may be given, the pres will get him out of. In which case, sure...so nevermind.

If Obama does that, he'll definitely be a one-term president.

Window_Seat
06-24-2010, 5:07 PM
Can a presidential pardon get someone out of a SCOTUS decision?...

If Arlen Specter can't get BHO to campaign for him in PA, then I doubt the POTUS will bend over backwards for someone like Richard(tator) Daley.:cool:

Erik.

bulgron
06-24-2010, 5:49 PM
The thing to consider here isn't what Obama might do for Daley, but rather what Daley THINKS Obama might be willing to do for him.

2009_gunner
06-24-2010, 6:09 PM
I think the decision will be quite harsh to Chicago, and that's why it is taking so long to release the opinion.

If the SCOTUS Justices mostly agreed on the outcome, it probably would already have been released. But since it is taking until the last day to come out, that indicates some very pissed off Justices (in the minority).

Which means Daley should be having a brain aneurysm in about 85 hours.

dfletcher
06-24-2010, 6:10 PM
Here's my best answer:

Meigs Field. See post 20 above for how well "Son of Hizzoner" handles this sort of thing.

http://www.friendsofmeigs.org/html/reflections_on_a_dark_night.htm

Gray Peterson
06-24-2010, 7:18 PM
You know, all of this speculation about what Daley is going to do.....I gotta say:

Alan Gura's frequent flier program is going to be pretty heavily loaded up with points over the next few months with King Daley. Also, do not be concerned about Heller II faltering and the DC situation. Remember that Gura filed an effective lawsuit in the form of Hanson v. District of Columbia which challenged their adoption of California's Safe Handgun Roster. DC neutered the roster and settled. Challenging the AWB and other regulations in DC District Court is STUPID because of the Navegar standing issues (whereas the 9th Circuit doesn't have this problem). Gura also filed Hodgkins v. Holder against the federal ban against non-state residents buying handguns (two US citizens who reside outside of the United States).

Of all of the people I can see challenging Daley's future gun regulations, there is no better person for this job than Alan Gura. Bar none. Daley can think all he wants, or try whatever he wants, but he is like George Wallace circa 1963: He will stand aside. If he doesn't, he will be thrown in the federal detention center until he signs the order to comply, and the deputy mayor and the head of the registration office will have to follow orders from the judge.

yellowfin
06-24-2010, 8:05 PM
The sooner the NY suits are filed and made public the better our job is in that state of raising SAF memberships and donations, which will mean more money for the cause, more supporters, and more plaintiffs. I've gotta have something better to tell these people than "We're working on it, trust me. I've met some of the guys who do this stuff out in California", and "Wait for McDonald." They're getting tired of hearing that and I'm getting tired of looking ridiculous for having nothing more concrete to say and being one of maybe two people in the room who know what I'm talking about, particularly being from out of town who nobody knew a year ago.

Manic Moran
06-24-2010, 8:10 PM
SCOTUS decisions are not written to be prospective. They can't be. It would be impossible.

But, they limitations they put into their decisions generally anticipate, based upon the arguments that got the cases there, the likely rounds of lawsuits coming after their decision.

In short, you won't see anything specific in their decision, which is one reason why we hope for strict scrutiny. As DV says, expect a long fight.

There is a caveat to that. One of the amicus briefs was by Nordyke, basically pointing out to SCOTUS that there's a case right below them currently en banc and awaiting the MacDonald outcome, requesting some guidance be issued. The implication is that if SCOTUS doesn't issue some form of specifics now, it's going to just have it in front of them next year anyway.

NTM

Gray Peterson
06-24-2010, 8:35 PM
The sooner the NY suits are filed and made public the better our job is in that state of raising SAF memberships and donations, which will mean more money for the cause, more supporters, and more plaintiffs. I've gotta have something better to tell these people than "We're working on it, trust me. I've met some of the guys who do this stuff out in California", and "Wait for McDonald." They're getting tired of hearing that and I'm getting tired of looking ridiculous for having nothing more concrete to say and being one of maybe two people in the room who know what I'm talking about, particularly being from out of town who nobody knew a year ago.

"Here lies the Sullivan Law, born 1911, died 2011, age 100".

Legal Shock and Awe is coming to NY among many other states.

yellowfin
06-24-2010, 8:40 PM
...Is coming, is coming, is coming... People have been predicting and anticipating the end of the world since at least 2600 B.C. Need a little better than that. Vague stuff doesn't give us credibility, and these people here need to believe something and "it's coming" isn't cutting it. You make not only you but also ME look like a snake oil salesman doing that. We're losing time not being able to get people together here and the people who have been here 10-30 years to have made networking and stuff like that to get to work aren't doing this stuff, aren't in on it, haven't heard of it unless someone tells them...and we're back to square one again. See the problem?

NYSRPA says "Not now, wait" and of course their "not now" is really never, they're poodle toying around with blocking whatever Manhattan throws at us but never doing more than punting the bad stuff away for another day and never a day nor dollar the better for it. We need to put the dragon under the guillotine NOW and chop its head off not trim its toenails and sharpen the clippers at night to perhaps try to cut its toe off the next day.

Paladin
06-24-2010, 8:50 PM
The sooner the ... suits are filed and made public the better our job is in that state of raising SAF memberships and donations, which will mean more money for the cause, more supporters, and more plaintiffs. I've gotta have something better to tell these people than "We're working on it, trust me. I've met some of the guys who do this stuff out in California", and "Wait for McDonald." They're getting tired of hearing that and I'm getting tired of looking ridiculous for having nothing more concrete to say and being one of maybe two people in the room who know what I'm talking about,....LOL! With just two edits all the above applies to me when talking/emailing gunnie friends in CA/PRK. I haven't even mentioned McDonald to anyone since the orals, and a TBJ lawsuit . . . well, I'll just say I can't remember the last time I told someone one of those was on its way.

While I'm looking forward to both of those things, I'm tired of gunnie friends looking at me like I'm the boy who cried wolf. Hopefully, by Monday afternoon, one "wolf" will actually arrive! (and I REALLY look forward to a little wolf pup to come along later named Sykes!)

dfletcher
06-24-2010, 9:21 PM
You know, all of this speculation about what Daley is going to do.....I gotta say:

Of all of the people I can see challenging Daley's future gun regulations, there is no better person for this job than Alan Gura. Bar none. Daley can think all he wants, or try whatever he wants, but he is like George Wallace circa 1963: He will stand aside. If he doesn't, he will be thrown in the federal detention center until he signs the order to comply, and the deputy mayor and the head of the registration office will have to follow orders from the judge.

That's an interesting analogy. Read a few books (and newspapers) on those events and Gov Barnett in Mississippi ('62 I think) and one aspect of both those confrontations is that each Governor postured in public "for domestic consumption" and to save face, knowing in the end they would step aside. I don't know if Daly will do the same or if he'll make nice in public while being obstructionist as hell behind the scenes.

Maybe he'll speak of the thus far unknown mayoral "interposition" - wouldn't that be quite the turn.

Sinixstar
06-24-2010, 9:47 PM
There is a caveat to that. One of the amicus briefs was by Nordyke, basically pointing out to SCOTUS that there's a case right below them currently en banc and awaiting the MacDonald outcome, requesting some guidance be issued. The implication is that if SCOTUS doesn't issue some form of specifics now, it's going to just have it in front of them next year anyway.

NTM

I think because of this - they'll probably lay some framework in terms of how cases should be interpreted, but ultimately leave the bulk of the work up to the lower courts.

This ruling from washington is what I think we should be hoping for more of:
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/State%20v%20Sieyes.pdf

Basically this court stated that just because SCOTUS is the final word on the subject of constitutionality - doesn't mean lower courts can't form an opinion. They then went for a full-on legal assault in favor of incorporation. So much so that the majority opinion favored incorporation of the 2nd against the state of Washington. The dissenting opinion? Dissent was due to the fact that the majority opinions about incorporation didn't go far enough.

Why do I bring all of this up? Because it shows that the lower courts are capable of handling the subject if they so choose. Given the seemingly sensitive political nature of the topic - I think to some degree courts have been cautious for fear of over-reaching. If SCOTUS can set a framework of guidelines to which cases should be considered by the lower courts - they don't have to spell out too many specifics, while still slamming the door on a lot of the BS out there. They just need to make sure they give the lower courts enough to work with. A vague "it will have to be decided case by case later" - such as in Heller - just isn't going to cut it.

Gray Peterson
06-24-2010, 10:00 PM
LOL! With just two edits all the above applies to me when talking/emailing gunnie friends in CA/PRK. I haven't even mentioned McDonald to anyone since the orals, and a TBJ lawsuit . . . well, I'll just say I can't remember the last time I told someone one of those was on its way.

While I'm looking forward to both of those things, I'm tired of gunnie friends looking at me like I'm the boy who cried wolf. Hopefully, by Monday afternoon, one "wolf" will actually arrive! (and I REALLY look forward to a little wolf pup to come along later named Sykes!)

"The Wolf" signifies a danger to a community. Though wolf pups are cute.

Paladin
06-24-2010, 10:04 PM
"The Wolf" signifies a danger to a community. Though wolf pups are cute.These "wolves" are a danger to the anti-gun major urban CLEO community in CA, so they're our friends. ;)

hoffmang
06-24-2010, 10:55 PM
To echo Gray here, Alan likes him some American Airlines frequent flier miles and Chicago is their hub.

We want the antis to be recalcitrant. We can only hope Daley peeves federal judges.

-Gene

Gray Peterson
06-24-2010, 11:06 PM
These "wolves" are a danger to the anti-gun major urban CLEO community in CA, so they're our friends. ;)

These wolves lick the hands of 2A advocates and those that love 2A freedom, and growl and snap at anti-gunners and tyrannical CLEO's like Ken James and Sheriff "I don't issue licenses so I don't have to have a CCW policy" Hennessey.

Paladin
06-25-2010, 12:23 AM
These wolves lick the hands of 2A advocates and those that love 2A freedom, and growl and snap at anti-gunners and tyrannical CLEO's like Ken James and Sheriff "I don't issue licenses so I don't have to have a CCW policy" Hennessey.Upon further reflection, to my gunnie friends, me talking/emailing about McDonald will just be like when I did it about Heller -- just me crying "Wolf!" again. I think it has to do w/personality.

Those who are abstract thinkers (Myers-Briggs/Keirsey NTs) are REALLY charged up by how Heller-McDonald will change the game, how it will open the floodgates in all the last holdout states to 2nd A challenges. But most of my gunnie friends are SPs/SJs. Until they see a difference when they go to their local gun shop (e.g., "normal" AKs/ARs offered for sale; hicaps for sale; NAA Guardians for sale) or until they can apply and get a CCW from their CLEO, all of this is just so much crying wolf. So I guess I'll send out a brief email, but that's it until a Sykes, Pena, or other win (judgment/verdict).

press1280
06-25-2010, 4:02 AM
I think because of this - they'll probably lay some framework in terms of how cases should be interpreted, but ultimately leave the bulk of the work up to the lower courts.

This ruling from washington is what I think we should be hoping for more of:
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/State%20v%20Sieyes.pdf

Basically this court stated that just because SCOTUS is the final word on the subject of constitutionality - doesn't mean lower courts can't form an opinion. They then went for a full-on legal assault in favor of incorporation. So much so that the majority opinion favored incorporation of the 2nd against the state of Washington. The dissenting opinion? Dissent was due to the fact that the majority opinions about incorporation didn't go far enough.

Why do I bring all of this up? Because it shows that the lower courts are capable of handling the subject if they so choose. Given the seemingly sensitive political nature of the topic - I think to some degree courts have been cautious for fear of over-reaching. If SCOTUS can set a framework of guidelines to which cases should be considered by the lower courts - they don't have to spell out too many specifics, while still slamming the door on a lot of the BS out there. They just need to make sure they give the lower courts enough to work with. A vague "it will have to be decided case by case later" - such as in Heller - just isn't going to cut it.

Yes, let's hope SCOTUS specifically tells lower courts to do an analysis on any 2A-related issues, and doesn't just fall back on the old,"SCOTUS hasn't held that yet," and dismiss the case with no explanation.

Mulay El Raisuli
06-25-2010, 7:59 AM
"Here lies the Sullivan Law, born 1911, died 2011, age 100".

Legal Shock and Awe is coming to NY among many other states.


Now that I've seen this in context, I agree with the other guy (at the other post): This is a GREAT line.


If Obama does that, he'll definitely be a one-term president.


Speaking of Obummer being a one-termer, someone out there (a :TFH: type I'm sure) is saying that Obummer is planning to emulate Carter. I.E., he's planning to issue a blanket amnesty/pardon to all the illegal aliens already in the country. The theory is that since he's not going to win a second term anyway, he's got nothing to lose.

What keeps this from being completely off-topic is that a belief that there's no tomorrow can make a man (any man) very dangerous. Also, we've had a President defy a SCOTUS Decision before (ex parte Merryman).

Could the coming losses in November make Obummer so batspit crazy that he would try to invalidate the McDonald Decision in some way?

Beats me! I'm not wearing a :TFH: so I just don't know.


The Raisuli

advocatusdiaboli
06-25-2010, 10:34 AM
(and I REALLY look forward to a little wolf pup to come along later named Sykes!)

I want Peña more than Sykes.

Gray Peterson
06-25-2010, 10:58 AM
I want Peña more than Sykes.

For obvious reasons, we need both.

Glock22Fan
06-25-2010, 11:05 AM
For obvious reasons, we need both.

These are both important, but there are other cases, one of which seems to be in stealth mode lately, even though it is potentially bigger still.

KylaGWolf
06-25-2010, 11:14 AM
How about wolf cub twins Sykes and Pena?

383green
06-25-2010, 11:17 AM
How about wolf cub twins Sykes and Pena?

As a dog lover, I salute you for that wonderful mental image!

2009_gunner
06-25-2010, 11:49 AM
I want Peña more than Sykes.

Really?

It seems to me that with a real win to Sykes the war will basically be over.

50 state reciprocity makes all "common-sense" laws worthless.

Gray Peterson
06-25-2010, 12:10 PM
Upon further reflection, to my gunnie friends, me talking/emailing about McDonald will just be like when I did it about Heller -- just me crying "Wolf!" again. I think it has to do w/personality.

Those who are abstract thinkers (Myers-Briggs/Keirsey NTs) are REALLY charged up by how Heller-McDonald will change the game, how it will open the floodgates in all the last holdout states to 2nd A challenges. But most of my gunnie friends are SPs/SJs. Until they see a difference when they go to their local gun shop (e.g., "normal" AKs/ARs offered for sale; hicaps for sale; NAA Guardians for sale) or until they can apply and get a CCW from their CLEO, all of this is just so much crying wolf. So I guess I'll send out a brief email, but that's it until a Sykes, Pena, or other win (judgment/verdict).

Sorry, I don't understand the references to SP's/SJ's.

Paladin
06-25-2010, 12:15 PM
Sorry, I don't understand the references to SP's/SJ's. Myers-Briggs personality stuff.