BWAHAHAHAHA !!! Chicago 7th Circuit Brief to Supreme Court actually HELPS !!

[son of the revolution]

I dont have any idea if its rank arrogance or sheer stupidity .

Just listening to Cam and Co and he was talking to an NRA Lawyer about the Chicago 7th Circuit Answer to the NRA 's appeal to the Supreme Ct .

In their brief they not only come right out and acknowledge that this is a good " vehicle " to settle the question of the 2A being a " fundamental " and binding right but their reasoning also flew directly in the face of what the Brady Bunch has been saying for twenty years !!



The Antis ALWAYS love to trot out three cases that they think vindicates their position

US v Cruikshank

Presser V Illinois

and US V Miller

Well Chicagos Brief to the SCOTUS comes right out and says essentially , " The NRA has been right all along , none of these cases address the issue at hand " Helmke and Co have got to be shitting their pants and screaming in frustration


Thats a really brief sumation , just listen to Cams show tommorrow once its in the archive for a clearer idea .

[press1280]

I dont have any idea if its rank arrogance or sheer stupidity .

Just listening to Cam and Co and he was talking to an NRA Lawyer about the Chicago 7th Circuit Answer to the NRA 's appeal to the Supreme Ct .

In their brief they not only come right out and acknowledge that this is a good " vehicle " to settle the question of the 2A being a " fundamental " and binding right but their reasoning also flew directly in the face of what the Brady Bunch has been saying for twenty years !!



The Antis ALWAYS love to trot out three cases that they think vindicates their position

US v Cruikshank

Presser V Illinois

and US V Miller

Well Chicagos Brief to the SCOTUS comes right out and says essentially , " The NRA has been right all along , none of these cases address the issue at hand " Helmke and Co have got to be shitting their pants and screaming in frustration


Thats a really brief sumation , just listen to Cams show tommorrow once its in the archive for a clearer idea .

SOTR- I think you meant Miller v. Texas, as US v. Miller has been somewhat replaced/overturned by Heller.
I just read "That Every Man Be Armed" by Stephen Halbrook, he addresses the same issues with those cases:
Cruikshank involved action by private individuals(KKK), no state authorities were being sued(you don't sue a robber for deprivation of your due process).
Presser said the 2A doesn't protect individuals parading private armies through the streets, also said the states couldn't deprive the United States of their rightful resource for security by disarming the people.
Miller v. Texas stated only that Miller couldn't argue for incorporation of the 2A because he didn't bring it up in the trial court.
A few years after Miller, Robertson v. Baldwin states that the 2A wasn't infringed by restriction of concealed carry. Since there was(and still is) no FEDERAL restriction on concealed carry, it doesn't make any sense for SCOTUS to say that if the 2A had NO APPLICATION TO THE STATES!

Chicago's toast. If you listen to the oral arguments of the 7th circuit case, the Chicago attorney goes on about the usual anti-gun talking points, and the judge tells her that we don't need tired slogans and "Do you think this case is going to be decided on whether John Lott's research is correct?"
Their gun law is almost identical to DC's so really this is a slam dunk which could possibly get more than the minimum 5 votes.

[son of the revolution]

SOTR- I think you meant Miller v. Texas, as US v. Miller has been somewhat replaced/overturned by Heller.
I just read "That Every Man Be Armed" by Stephen Halbrook, he addresses the same issues with those cases:
Cruikshank involved action by private individuals(KKK), no state authorities were being sued(you don't sue a robber for deprivation of your due process).
Presser said the 2A doesn't protect individuals parading private armies through the streets, also said the states couldn't deprive the United States of their rightful resource for security by disarming the people.
Miller v. Texas stated only that Miller couldn't argue for incorporation of the 2A because he didn't bring it up in the trial court.
A few years after Miller, Robertson v. Baldwin states that the 2A wasn't infringed by restriction of concealed carry. Since there was(and still is) no FEDERAL restriction on concealed carry, it doesn't make any sense for SCOTUS to say that if the 2A had NO APPLICATION TO THE STATES!

Chicago's toast. If you listen to the oral arguments of the 7th circuit case, the Chicago attorney goes on about the usual anti-gun talking points, and the judge tells her that we don't need tired slogans and "Do you think this case is going to be decided on whether John Lott's research is correct?"
Their gun law is almost identical to DC's so really this is a slam dunk which could possibly get more than the minimum 5 votes.

Astute evaluation on your part to be sure , but as to Miller , I was in fact referring to US v Miller from the late 30 's . That was the first case to reach SCOTUS under the 1934 National Firearms Act and the one the Anti's have constantly twisted out of context by claiming the SCOTUS ruled in Miller that the 2A wasnt an individual right , when the fact is not only did that not come up , but the issue at Miller was wether or not a sawed off shotgun was considered to be " in common military use " at the time .

Miller was a poor case for a few different reasons

No defense was mounted for one , because IIRC Miller or his co defendant didnt even bother to argue the case , I think one of them died before the SCOTUS hearing . And two , no one ever informed the justices that a cut down shotgun WAS in fact " in common military use " at the time . As the famous " trench gun " got its reputation only roughly 20 years earlier at the height of WW 1 .

Had the defendants tried to argue the case , and pointed out the fact the same style shotgun was in common use , Miller might very well have turned out different .

Point being , as I said it was the trifecta of bad cases Presser, Cruikshank and Miller from the 30's that the Anti's always make their arguments on and the irony that the 7th Circuit chopped their legs right out from under them that those cases didnt decide the issue and held no bearing


One other thing , its my understanding that some sort of " directive " or opinion was issued by SCOTUS recently , dont recall if it was pre or post Heller , but they told the Circuits to stop using cases from the last Century to make the precedant argument . So in both the 7th Circuit with Chicago and in the 2nd with Maloney the Circuits Courts screwed up badly by insisting on going back to Presser and Cruikshank , in direct contravention to what SCOTUS said.

[press1280]

[S]ometimes later decisions, though not explicitly
overruling or even mentioning an
earlier decision, indicate that the Court very
probably will not decide the issue the same
way the next time. In such a case, to continue
to follow the earlier case blindly until it
is formally overruled is to apply the dead,
not the living, law.
Norris v. United States, 687 F.2d 899, 904 (7th Cir.
1982).

Not from SCOTUS but I'm sure the court has probably said something similiar. The incorporation doctrine didn't exist for those favorite cases of the antis. No way in hell they would be decided the same way today.