View Single Post
Old 12-04-2012, 12:44 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,542
iTrader: 1 / 100%

Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
Perhaps I need to be more explicit. The 7th Circuit's decision in McDonald (not to mention Chicago's laws) indicate that the 7th Circuit is not a friend of the RKBA. Nevertheless, following McDonald, the 7th Circuit issued the Ezell opinion, which is much less antagonistic to the RKBA. As you say, it ruled in favor of the RKBA. By issuing that order -- an order that is inconsistent with the perceived inclinations of the 7th Circuit -- the 7th Circuit swallowed a bitter pill. It did something it did not like -- it ruled in favor of the RKBA. In other words, Ezell is evidence for the proposition that, in the context of the RKBA, federal courts are able to put aside personal feelings.
That's true, but I would argue that the 7th Circuit has been an outlier in that respect.

The reason I'd argue such is that the 7th Circuit actually heeded and adopted the reasoning behind the Heller and McDonald decisions. The majority of the courts have not done this. Instead, those courts have strictly limited their decision-making process to the holdings of Heller and McDonald. But per Supreme Court jurisprudence, the holdings themselves are not the extent of the jurisprudence set forth by the Supreme Court -- the reasoning behind the decisions are also part of the jurisprudence the Court builds. Gura referred, in at least one (and actually several, if I remember right) of his briefs, to a Supreme Court ruling that explicitly states such, but I can't for the life of me remember what brief(s) would have that reference.

Every court in the country which has asserted that the right (either in its entirety or at its core) is limited to the home per Heller and McDonald is intentionally going against Supreme Court jurisprudence. This behavior hasn't been the exception, it's been the rule.

You can't argue that these courts have been following Supreme Court jurisprudence when they pick and choose which jurisprudence to follow!
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 12-04-2012 at 12:47 PM..