Petitioner's brief filed in McDonald v. Chicago

Discussion in 'Legal' started by freonr22, Nov 16, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. legaleagle_45

    legaleagle_45 Member

    Aug 23, 2007
    All of the amicus briefs in support of petitioner will be due today. Additionally, the Brady Bunch will be filing a brief today. They noticed the parties that they would file a brief which they say would neither support petitioners or respondants.... and if you believe that, I have this bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell to you at a very attractive price...

    This site should provide updates on all briefs as they are filed today:

    My take on the briefs:

    Rutherford brief---nothing new... it is ok, but almost anyone could have written it. If you are pressed for time, do not bother.

    Paragon brief--- straight substantive due process argument... short and sweet.

    Heartland brief--- criminologist brief examinig the effects of the Chicago gun ban and emphasising that the police have no duty to protect.... short and sweet

    Appelants from Nordyke-- This is Don Kilmer's brief. It examines the proper level of review and discusses the sensitive places doctorine. Interesting, but not an issue in this case whatsoever and will have no impact on the decision.

    Cato Brief-- straight P or I argument. Good brief to try to read and compare with the Paragon brief to distinguish the two lines of argument being presented in McDonald.
  2. Phatty

    Phatty Member

    Apr 2, 2009
    Southern Illinois
    If I had to guess, their brief will argue that the 2nd Amendment should be incorporated (disagreeing with Chicago), but will also argue that Chicago's handgun ban is constitutional (disagreeing with the petitioners).
  3. Tom Servo

    Tom Servo Member

    Apr 25, 2004
    The hilly SE
    They've no doubt had the opportunity to read our briefs, and if they have a bit of sense, they know that incorporation is inevitable.

    So they'll switch to damage control. They'll most likely push for the widest and most permissive standard of scrutiny possible. I expect they'll quote Breyer's dissent in Heller, in which he argued,

    I've got a feeling that such an argument won't hold up too well in orals. One of the guilty pleasures I took from the Heller proceedings was listening to Dellinger dissemble before the Court with many of the same talking points.

    Odd that we're at deadline day, and we still haven't heard much. There should be a brief from our legislators as well.
  4. Michael Thomson

    Michael Thomson Member

    Apr 27, 2007
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice