McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521)

[FNG19]

According to Volokh, the 9th Circuit has voted to re-hear Nor**** en banc. This could prove very, very interesting.

[DaveM55]

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/second-...ases-up-early/

The Supreme Court will consider two new cases on the scope of individuals’ Second Amendment right to have guns at its first Conference for the new Term, on Sept. 29, according to the Court’s electronic docket. Both petitions challenge a Seventh Circuit Court ruling that the Amendment does not restrict gun control laws adopted by state, county or city government, but applies only to federal laws. The cases are National Rifle Association v. Chicago (08-1497) and McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521).

The so-called “incorporation” issue is the most significant sequel issue raised in the wake of the Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing for the first time a personal right to have a gun for self-defense, at least in one’s home.

If the Court agrees to hear the new cases after its first look, that could be announced as early as the day after the Conference — that is, on Wed., Sept. 30. The first Conference of a new Term customarily is held in advance of the Term’s formal opening; this year, the Term starts Oct. 5.

The Court has not yet scheduled a time to consider another pending case on the Second Amendment issue — Maloney v. Rice (08-1592). The response in that case is now due on Aug. 28. The new Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, took part in the Maloney case when she was on the Second Circuit Court. Like the Seventh Circuit, the Second found that the Second Amendment only applies to federal laws. When the Justices consider the Maloney case, Sotomayor is not expected to take part. The fact that she had taken part in a ruling on the issue in one case, however, would not require her to withdraw from considering cases from other Circuits, like the Chicago cases.

[Yellowfin]

Good thing I've got pre-season scouting and goose hunting to keep me preoccupied instead of counting down the days one day at a time...

[ChamberedRound]

See my post here:
http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/6...tml#post894923

The 2nd Circuit case in which Sotomayor refused to incorporate the 2nd is being appealed to the SCotUS, and is being considered on the same date at the aforementioned Chicago cases. If they consolidate the 3 into a single case, and Sotomayor follows custom, she will need to recuse herself from the consolidated case.

[Yellowfin]

SotoB**** not being on the bench may make things go 5-3, but it could make it go 4-4. If the latter happens, do we win or lose?

[kadar]

If it goes 4-4, the lower court decision is upheld. It can then be re-argued.

[press1280]

See my post here:
http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/6...tml#post894923

The 2nd Circuit case in which Sotomayor refused to incorporate the 2nd is being appealed to the SCotUS, and is being considered on the same date at the aforementioned Chicago cases. If they consolidate the 3 into a single case, and Sotomayor follows custom, she will need to recuse herself from the consolidated case.

But doesn't SCOTUS go through all cases that are seeking cert. and then pick out the ones they want to hear? If that's the case, have they actually decided to hear ANY of the 3 cases involving the 2A?

[Yellowfin]

It's pretty clear that they'd want to hear it because they left the door open with Heller. It'd be stupid not to finish the puzzle, plus the inferior courts (yes I do think of Chicago and NY as inferior) said that the SCOTUS would have to rule on it.

[ChamberedRound]

Haven't listened myself yet, but here's the en banc Oral Arguments in Nor**** v King:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/vi..._id=0000003933

This link was courtesy of the blog Of Arms and the Law. If I can find a transcript, I'll post it here as well.

[FNG19]

Haven't listened myself yet, but here's the en banc Oral Arguments in Nor**** v King

Great find, thanks! I'm definitely interested in that transcript if/when it's available.