McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521)

[Yellowfin]

As importantly if not moreso are the briefs and motions for summary judgement, which are available on Calguns.net and hoffmang.com.

[ChamberedRound]

Just saw this, again courtesy of the Of Arms and the Law Blog:

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

That didn't take long
Posted by David Hardy · 24 September 2009 07:57 PM

Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 09/24/2009 at 4:07:21 PM PDT and filed on 09/24/2009:
Case Name: Nor****, et al v. King, et al
Case Number: 07-15763

Docket Text:
Filed order (ALEX KOZINSKI): Submission is vacated pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of Maloney v. Rice, No. 08-1592, McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521, and National Rifle Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1497.

[Essentially, Nor**** will be held onto until the Supreme Ct disposes of the other cases, either granting cert. and ruling, or denying cert.]

UPDATE: by held onto I mean the Circuit will take no action, leaving it in a sort of limbo. It won't send it back to the lower court for action, nor give a final decision, which would mean it could move on to the Supreme Court. Judges do not like to be reversed , and here the exact issue is going before the Supreme Court, why take a position that might get crosswise with their ruling? If the Supreme Court grants review, the Circuit will hold onto it until the Supreme Court rules. If the Supreme Court denies review of the earlier Chicago cases, the 9th Circuit will proceed to rule.

This is nice in a way since it gives two shots at Supreme Court review, and IF the Chicago cases were refused, and the 9th then ruled for incorporation of the right to arms, there would be a second shot at Supreme Court consideration, now with a split among the circuits,

[edstephan]

High court to look at local gun control laws

High court to look at local gun control laws
By MARK SHERMAN (AP) – 15 minutes ago

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether strict local and state gun control laws violate the Second Amendment, ensuring another high-profile battle over the rights of gun owners.

The court said it will review a lower court ruling that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. Gun rights supporters challenged gun laws in Chicago and some suburbs immediately following the high court's decision in June 2008 that struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave.

The new case tests whether last year's ruling applies as well to local and state laws.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld ordinances barring the ownership of handguns in most cases in Chicago and suburban Oak Park, Ill.

Judge Frank Easterbrook, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, said that "the Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule."

"Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon," Easterbrook wrote.

Evaluating arguments over the extension of the Second Amendment is a job "for the justices rather than a court of appeals," he said.

The high court took his suggestion Wednesday.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, then an appeals court judge, was part of a three-judge panel in New York that reached a similar conclusion in January.

Judges on both courts — Republican nominees in Chicago and Democratic nominees in New York — said only the Supreme Court could decide whether to extend last year's ruling throughout the country. Many, but not all, of the constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights have been applied to cities and states.

The New York ruling also has been challenged, but the court did not act on it Wednesday. Sotomayor would have to sit out any case involving decisions she was part of on the appeals court. Although the issue is the same in the Chicago case, there is no ethical bar to her participation in its consideration by the Supreme Court.

Several Republican senators cited the Sotomayor gun ruling, as well as her reticence on the topic at her confirmation hearing, in explaining their decision to oppose her confirmation to the high court.

The case will be argued next year.

The case is McDonald v. Chicago, 08-1521.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.


An OC Activist and 1 of the 3%
Ed Stephan

[theo]

Just heard New York is the target after Chicago.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/po...o_gun_ban.html

[Yellowfin]

New York definitely does need to be the next target after Chicago. The Sullivan Law must be destroyed.

[ChamberedRound]

I was hoping that all the pending cases on this issue (2 Chicago, one NY) would've been combined. If they had, it would've put pressure on Sotomayor to recuse herself in the hearing of the entire group.

[mrjam2jab]

One would think....logically ...that since it was SCOTUS that struck down the DC ban...then it should automatically apply to Chicago, IL and New York...rather than having to try all of these cases individually...

[Asmodeus6]

One would think....logically ...that since it was SCOTUS that struck down the DC ban...then it should automatically apply to Chicago, IL and New York...rather than having to try all of these cases individually...

You'd think... but that's how these scum bag municipalities and cities get away with their bullshit. They play the roach game. Knowing we can't squish them all at once, and these situations take time and money to get them one by one.

[ChamberedRound]

One would think....logically ...that since it was SCOTUS that struck down the DC ban...then it should automatically apply to Chicago, IL and New York...rather than having to try all of these cases individually...

The only real issue addressed in Heller v DC was the issue of whether or not the 2nd Amendment conferred and individual right, and if that right could be outright banned.

The Chicago and other cases additionally layer on the issue of incorporation, whether or not such rights, as those protected by the 2nd, preempt a state's right to regulate them. This was not an issue in Heller because DC isn't a state, but in the Chicago case, IL is attempting to claim that the 2A protection only applies to the federal government, not individual states.

This is why the case is being heard. The SCotUS can't blindly decide this case on Heller as Heller didn't address the complication of state involvement. If this case goes in favor of incorporating the 2A, then in the future gun control laws could indeed be overturned on precedent.

[Steve_NEPhila]

Now that is what I would consider "Change You Can Believe In."

We can all expect a whole slew of major news outlets showing how easy it is to buy a Tec-9 at a gun show or an armor piercing .50 BMG rifle "favored by gangs" everywhere except California. And to think, it was looking dark in the 90's with the ill fated assault weapons ban.