Gura's reply brief

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

legaleagle_45

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
834
Is due today. Thought I would start this post now rather than wait for it to be available online cuz every time I do that, someone always starts a thread before I do and then Art locks my thread!

:evil:
 
I have not been following the sequence of the case.

Can you explain what the reply brief is, exactly?
 
Can you explain what the reply brief is, exactly?
Click to expand...

A reply brief is a vehicle for Gura to address all of the errors, lies, misrepresentations and stupid arguments propounded by Chicago and Chicago's amici. It is due 30 days after Chicago filed its brief, which is today and its scope is limited to matters raised by Chicago (and amici) in their previously submitted briefs.
 
Do they get to reply to his reply, or is a reply brief a privilege of the plaintiff in such a case?
 
Do they get to reply to his reply,
Click to expand...

No, after the reply is filed by Gura, the briefing for the case is closed and we set our alarm clocks to March 2, 2010 when the next scheduled event is oral argument.
 
Bah, mine posted before yours :evil:

Funny, just reading the intro is very entertaining. I guess when you so much in the right it's easy to make the other party look like idiots.

This Court interprets the Constitution as en- acted, not as it might optimally have been written. Fortunately, the document properly interpreted and applied does not lend itself to Respondents’ predicted parade of horribles.
Click to expand...

Heh heh.....
 
Nice. Gura managed to work in a Citizen's United cite. Just to let them know he was on his game I guess.

OK, just finished the Gura brief. As always, it was a great piece of writing and well-argued in his typical, direct fashion. I liked the bit that enforcing the Constitution was also law enforcement.
 
Last edited:
I agree with TexasRifleman. The brief put forth by Chicago et al seems almost embarrassingly inept.
 
Clement preempts the issue of intermediate scrutiny being used against him in orals:

This case, like Heller, also does not present an
occasion on which to decide the standard of review to
be applied in analyzing laws touching on the right to
keep and bear arms.... The standard of review issue
is not part of the question presented and is not fairly
included within that question. Even if it were, the
handgun bans at issue in this case are substantively
identical to the ban in Heller, which the Court struck
down while pointedly declining to identify a standard
of review with precision....
Click to expand...

Then a footnote just in case the Justices were not convinced:

2 The decision by the United States, which surely has an
interest in the standard of review, not to participate in this case
underscores that the issue is not properly presented.
Click to expand...

LOL
 
That was a fun read, and even included some intentional humor.

The concept of “ordered liberty” Respondents
invoke twenty-seven times never referred to the
government’s liberty to issue orders.
Click to expand...
 
well I don't have time for a full read but just glancing through that it looks like he's about destroying Chicago's arguments :)
 
Besides Gura's (which was typically superb), I thought the NRA did a pretty good job too. In the least it dismantled Chicago's argument completely.
 
I agree with TexasRifleman. The brief put forth by Chicago et al seems almost embarrassingly inept.
Click to expand...
Chicago's law department rides to work on the short bus. They're shockingly incompetent. They settle the most transparently fraudulent police brutality cases, while fighting cases that are a slam dunk for the plaintiff, regularly incurring multi-million dollar judments. They couldn't find their own behinds with a phased array radar and a search party the size of the Chinese People's Liberation Army.
 
Haven't read it yet

I haven't read it yet, but I'm curious if there was mention of the INTENT of the ILLINOIS constitution, which is a paper tiger in practice...

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
Click to expand...
 
Help a guy out here.

Subject only to the police power
Click to expand...
In my industry (engineering) a state that reserves 'police power' is reserving the right to make up additional laws as it sees fit, and can pass that power on to municipal governments. Is the term being used by Illinois to do the same, effectively keeping the authority to make up gun laws as it sees fit?

"You citizens have the right to be armed, but the State will change that from time to time for it's own benefit. Learn to live with it."

Perhaps that is the importance of incorporation to the US Constitution, eh?
 
Police power= police state?
Go, Gura!
Got that day off to listen to the oral arguments on C-Span...my boss was a little surprised WHY I wanted the day off...
 
The decision by the United States, which surely has an interest in the standard of review, not to participate in this case underscores that the issue is not properly presented.
Click to expand...

I liked this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
Heller,The View From the Counsel Table:The Most Influential Briefs
Replies
3
Views
630
Winchester 73
W
P
  • Locked
Questions for Alan Gura (Lead counsel on Parker)
Replies
14
Views
784
Kharn
K
B
  • Locked
SCOTUS gives anti gunners side an edge ?
Replies
5
Views
523
bg
B
D
  • Locked
NRA steals time from Gura
2 3
Replies
70
Views
3K
ServiceSoon
S
Bill Akins
  • Locked
Akins vs ATF federal district court pleadings & briefs.
Replies
9
Views
852
ServiceSoon
S
Back
Top