- 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!
Can you explain what the reply brief is, exactly?
Do they get to reply to his reply,
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.
Had Petitioners’ arguments threatened much disruption,
Respondents might have garnered support
from more than three states.
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....
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.
The concept of “ordered liberty” Respondents
invoke twenty-seven times never referred to the
government’s liberty to issue orders.
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.I agree with TexasRifleman. The brief put forth by Chicago et al seems almost embarrassingly inept.
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.)
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?Subject only to the police power
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.