McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521)

[YllwFvr]

A few of you explained it very well, and I was hoping thats what it meant.

I think we need this, very badly. As good as I feel to live in my state and enjoy alot of what the second really means, it bothers me that so many others in the country are restricted or outright denied the joy and security the second should offer to the every american. It shouldnt matter if you cross some imaginary line.

[pitt45GAP]

A slave still can't realistically own a gun there.

Fixed it for ya... those pretty words like civilian and taxes are their words to legitimize their tyranny, please don't use them

[ChamberedRound]

According to Dave Hardy's Of Arms and the Law, Chicago's brief is available. See here:

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/20...os_brief_1.php

Chicago's brief is online
Posted by David Hardy · 31 December 2009 09:15 AM

Pdf is here. Reading it now.

Thoughts after a quick read: stylistically, well-written. The argument against due process incorporation involves taking what the Court has said and not what the Court has done. The Court has said that "fundamental rights" are something of a narrow class of rights ... rights without which there is liberty or civilization. But what it did while so saying was to rule fundamental almost all the rest of the bill of rights, and unincorporated rights such as the rights to contraception, abortion, and gay relationships.

I think we can say that there can be liberty and civilization without, oh, jury trial for major misdemeanors, the right to buy condoms, the right to an appointed attorney. For that matter, with an established church, such as in England, and the right of the prosecution to move for a new trial based on legal errors. I vastly prefer living in THIS civilization and with THESE freedoms, but I can envision a liberty and civilization without them.

With regard privileges or immunities incorporation, it's right what we could expect. (1) Don't overrule 100+ years of case law and (2) OK, so there are quite a few mentions in 1866-68 of p or i enforcing the bill of rights, but they're not enough and not clear enough for our tastes. With a dash of (3) if you incorporate via p or i (AND use it to abandon rather than supplement due process incorporation) then you have to withdraw all bill of rights protections from corporations and aliens, since they may be "persons," but are not "citizens."

[NEPAdestroyer]

A few of you explained it very well, and I was hoping thats what it meant.

I think we need this, very badly. As good as I feel to live in my state and enjoy alot of what the second really means, it bothers me that so many others in the country are restricted or outright denied the joy and security the second should offer to the every american. It shouldnt matter if you cross some imaginary line.

tell 'em big guy.

[Yellowfin]

It doesn't really change anything. Most states already have at least some respect for the 2nd Amendment. Only the most radically liberal ones don't.

They will change nothing about their laws regardless of the outcome of this case.

Heller happened how long ago? DC has still done nothing other than change some wording in the law. A civilian still can't realistically own a gun there.

They're going to sue over and over again as necessary to get things to the level of free states. The McDonald case will be a good start and the ruling should have enough words in it to use to wipe out most of the really nasty junk there is.

[Nevermore]

They're going to sue over and over again as necessary to get things to the level of free states. The McDonald case will be a good start and the ruling should have enough words in it to use to wipe out most of the really nasty junk there is.

Exactly. Winning McDonald will allow folks to sue in federal court instead of state court, which provides an avenue for cases that have been lost in state courts. For those states where the state courts have just shut down any challenges based on the 2A, it'll provide an avenue to sue for your rights at all.

It doesn't really change anything. Most states already have at least some respect for the 2nd Amendment. Only the most radically liberal ones don't.

They will change nothing about their laws regardless of the outcome of this case.

To say winning McDonald won't change anything is misunderstanding the situation. It won't change the laws in and of itself, no -- but it'll give pro-2A groups a means to challenge those laws that they didn't have before. This puts laws in states like NY, CA, IL, NJ up for challenges whereas before they were behind a glass case and untouchable.

[NevynPA]

I am in about the same category as YllwFvr here - and I also say thank you to you all for helping me understand exactly what all this means to me and to others. I'd send rep for some of the posts that I found the most helpful, but I can't seem to.

Thank you all!

[tl_3237]

Does anyone know if the audio of the oral arguments next Tuesday (3/2) will be broadcast in near real time as they were for Heller case?

Been searching but coming up empty.

[King 5.45]

Does anyone know if the audio of the oral arguments next Tuesday (3/2) will be broadcast in near real time as they were for Heller case?

Been searching but coming up empty.

I can't find anything, either. Considering the fact that this is a case with much broader possibility of application of outcome than Heller was, you might think that there would be more interest and demand for coverage.

[Nevermore]

The Supreme Court seems to really dislike live broadcast of their hearings. They're stubbornly holding out on televised hearings, like in Congress. They do make audio recordings, which will likely come out shortly afterwards, along with a transcript. They know how much attention this case has, so they'll want to get those out there as quickly as possible, otherwise their staff will be deluged with requests until they do.

One site that collects audio recordings for SCOTUS hearings is oyez.org. They have recordings going back decades, if you're interested in that kind of stuff. I imagine they'll have McDonald as soon as SCOTUS releases it. It should also be on the SCOTUS website as well.