Chicago files brief in McDonald v City of Chicago

[ming]

Chicago has now filed its brief with SCOTUS in McDonald et al. v. City of Chicago. Here's a link.

ChicagoGunCase.com

 

[bushmaster1313]

This case is huge.

Chicago Brief here:

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/08-1521-bs.pdf

Will be interesting to see who files amicus briefs against applying the the Bill of Rights to the States!

Amicus briefs are, I believe, due on January 7.

 

[Phatty]

Will be interesting to see who files amicus briefs against applying the the Bill of Rights to the States!

Chicago's brief mentions a few of the amici that will be filing supporting briefs. Off of the top of my head, I recall reading that the State of Illinois will be filing a supporting brief as well as a group of law professors.

 

[divemedic]

OK, from the brief:

Federalism is based on two essential premises. First, because conditions vary from one place to another, residents in different locales, facing widely different conditions and social problems, should be able to address them with widely varying solutions. Second, and more fundamental, even if conditions in two States may be similar, “it is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). As the court of appeals noted, “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.”

That sounds like a pretty good argument for abolishing all Federal gun laws.

 

[wishin]

Somehow the "happy incidents" phrase doesn't sound like the legalese one sees in legal briefs or decisions.................

 

[Phatty]

That sounds like a pretty good argument for abolishing all Federal gun laws.

Yeah, its ironic (hypocritical?) that with respect to gun bans, liberals are all of sudden huge proponents of federalism, but on every other issue they advocate for nation-wide laws.

 

[NelsErik]

In case anyone is interested I asked one of my local attorneys who helped write one of the briefs for this case to give me the play by play on this. He said he will keep me updated as it moves a long. This is what he said in his last email.

Oral argument is 3/2. Often, you can find an audio of arguments on the Court's website after the fact. Nothing is on hold because Justice Stevens has not announced retirement. As a result, the decision should come down this June.

 

[9teenEleven]

Hmm, too bad that we decided to undermine the local flavor of the south by abolishing that "novel social experiment" called slavery.

Rights are rights. Restricting them should not be called local differences, and we certainly shouldn't cherish when it happens.

 

[Deanimator]

This idiocy has Daley's slimy fingerprints all over it.

It's the legal equivalent of von Paulus's defense of Stalingrad. Anybody with any sense would punt and agree to return the law to the status quo ante before the ban went into effect. But like Hitler, Daley's doing his "Sieg oder Todt" thing. and todt is exactly what he's going to get in court. Of course he's going to spend literally MILLIONS of dollars to lose in court and help trash gun control everywhere else in the country. But it's not Daley's money and he doesn't care. It's just like his using the city attorneys as his personal attorneys in the police torture suits.

Sometimes, like the Allies in WWII, one can be extraordinarily fortunate in ones selection of enemies.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Chicago's amicus brief are in... same web site as above. They are as follows:

Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence

ADL

U.S. Conference of Mayors

“Public Health Organizations”

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, et al.

States of Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey

“Early American History”

“Early English History”

“Historians and Legal Scholars”

Villages of Winnetka & Skokie, et al.

Chicago Bd. of Education, et al.

“Professional Historians”

Criminal Justice Professors

Cities, Cook County, and Police Chiefs

Prosecuting Attorneys

Oak Park Citizens Committee

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I like Chicago's argument that federalism means states can deny citizens basic, fundamental, individual rights explicitly enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

I mean that IS the purpose of federalism after all right? To allow local governments to dominate and oppress their citizens while prohibiting the federal government from doing it... Only in Daleystan would someone think that was a perfect example of federalism.

 

[ArmedBear]

I like Chicago's argument that federalism means states can deny citizens basic, fundamental, individual rights explicitly enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

As you know, there have been plenty of posters here who would totally agree with that argument.

I'm not one of them.

 

[Deanimator]

I mean that IS the purpose of federalism after all right? To allow local governments to dominate and oppress their citizens while prohibiting the federal government from doing it... Only in Daleystan would someone think that was a perfect example of federalism.

By tradition, there AREN'T any rights in Chicago, merely privileges bought and sold for cash and favors.

You're talking about a city where the city council orders politically offensive paintings to be "arrested" by the police.

If Daley doesn't think you have the right to not be tortured with electric shocks to the genitals, what makes you think he believes you have a right to defend yourself in your home with a firearm?

 

[divemedic]

I like Chicago's argument that federalism means states can deny citizens basic, fundamental, individual rights explicitly enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

I mean that IS the purpose of federalism after all right? To allow local governments to dominate and oppress their citizens while prohibiting the federal government from doing it... Only in Daleystan would someone think that was a perfect example of federalism.

That is exactly what was being done after the Civil War, until the 14A was passed.

 

[LickitySplit]

This idiocy has Daley's slimy fingerprints all over it.

It's the legal equivalent of von Paulus's defense of Stalingrad. Anybody with any sense would punt and agree to return the law to the status quo ante before the ban went into effect. But like Hitler, Daley's doing his "Sieg oder Todt" thing. and todt is exactly what he's going to get in court. Of course he's going to spend literally MILLIONS of dollars to lose in court and help trash gun control everywhere else in the country. But it's not Daley's money and he doesn't care. It's just like his using the city attorneys as his personal attorneys in the police torture suits.

Sometimes, like the Allies in WWII, one can be extraordinarily fortunate in ones selection of enemies.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Bradys had tried to persuade Daley/Chicago to throw in the towel and just let the ban go because of the ramifications (they had attempted to convince Fenty/DC not to appeal the lower courts ruling in Parker/Heller. Luckily for us they pressed on anyways).

Assuming a positive outcome in this case, and unless the SCOTUS clearly addresses the issue of licensing and registration, expect King Richard to pull the same stunt that DC did and put in place every expense, road block and inconvenience possible.

 

[wishin]

As you know, there have been plenty of posters here who would totally agree with that argument.

I'm not so sure of that. Although it's hard to deny that the government already denies us our Constitutional right to bear arms.............