Petitioner's brief filed in McDonald v. Chicago

Not open for further replies.
More will be coming in by end of the court day on Monday, the 23rd.

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.
Additionally, the Brady Bunch will be filing a brief today.
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).
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,

Indeed, adoption of a true strict-scrutiny standard for evaluating gun regulations would be impossible. That is because almost every gun-control regulation will seek to advance (as the one here does) a “primary concern of every government—a concern for the safety and indeed the lives of its citizens.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 755 (1987) . The Court has deemed that interest, as well as “the Government’s general interest in preventing crime,” to be “compelling.”
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.
Not open for further replies.