USSC to take Chicago case on 2A incorporation

Patrick said:

You are one optimistic guy. I like that line of thinking. But I think for that to happen in 9 months we would need a trifecta:

#1 McDonald to be incorporated "Substantially" and requiring strict scrutiny of all anti-2A laws

#2 Palmer to be decided on 2A-friendly terms at the Circuit level with no Supreme Court intervention (possible)

#3 MD lawmakers to not drag their feet and force years of lawsuits before complying with the law.

#1 and #2 are out of MD purview. But you can bet the liberals in the MD House and Senate will fight and drag things out, unless someone somewhere starts making money from suing governments that "infringe civil rights".

My guess is a cottage industry of lawyers forms to fight (and profit from that fight) governments for our newly (un)recognized civil right.

Which means Frosh will probably jump sides.

Click to expand...

With this line I think you have been around cool aid too long.
Above that, you could be right, and I'm listening to see the outcome.

pcfixer said:

[/SIZE][/B]

With this line I think you have been around cool aid too long.
Above that, you could be right, and I'm listening to see the outcome.

Click to expand...

Forgot that little sarcastic smiley thingy.

Patrick said:

You are one optimistic guy. I like that line of thinking. But I think for that to happen in 9 months we would need a trifecta:

#1 McDonald to be incorporated "Substantially" and requiring strict scrutiny of all anti-2A laws

Click to expand...

Given. 99.44% sure on this 'Fundamental' right to be incorporated against the States. Substantial Due Process (SDP) due to being a Fundamental Right (Heller precedent). The only wildcard in my book if this will be Heller 2, or will the SCOTUS address the 'Bear' in addition to the 'Keep'. Self Defense as a RIGHT will be addressed outside the home. They'll back away from concealed carry, but will rule Bear/Carry as protected in the 2A, which they didn't do in Heller. Too many innuendos in McDonald & Heller on this, it should be addressed in my opinion. If they are going to incorporate the 2nd, they'll address all of it that wasn't addressed in Heller, particularly the Bear/Carry aspect outside the home. The right of Self Defense does not end at your property line. Do this once and let the Circuit Courts take it from there.

Patrick said:

#2 Palmer to be decided on 2A-friendly terms at the Circuit level with no Supreme Court intervention (possible)

Click to expand...

Icing on the cake but not required...if the entirety of the 2A is Incorporated via SDP. SDP will require Strict Scrutiny be applied on all laws written against that Fundamental right. Strict Scrutiny starts with the assumption that any such law is first Unconstitutional. The State must argue that compelling state interest exists, they must prove these interests. With 40 plus or minus states allowing shall-issue ccw or open-carry, their likely arguments will fail quickly. The burden of proof will be on the state to justify any law against this right.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Substantive_due_process

Patrick said:

#3 MD lawmakers to not drag their feet and force years of lawsuits before complying with the law.

Click to expand...

We need to start greasing the wheel now. Composed letters and/or petitions to the Attorney General are a start. To the General Assembly second. Make them see the writing on the wall, express the costs to the state in fighting what are unconstitutional laws. I wish I could get a number on what Richard (Dick) Daley is costing the tax payers in Chicago for a lost cause...

NRA, SAF, MSI, Cato are groups/institutions that have already contributed greatly in these causes. Hell...between Palmer or California's Sykes v. McGiness, one could almost write a case against MD on these alone regarding carry laws.

Patrick said:

#1 and #2 are out of MD purview. But you can bet the liberals in the MD House and Senate will fight and drag things out, unless someone somewhere starts making money from suing governments that "infringe civil rights".

My guess is a cottage industry of lawyers forms to fight (and profit from that fight) governments for our newly (un)recognized civil right.

Which means Frosh will probably jump sides.

Click to expand...

My point is that this outcome seems pretty obvious, at least to me. 2010 is going to be a great year. We should plan the fight for post-McDonald before the decision in the June timeframe. Some form of carry (whether open or concealed) should hopefully be very easy to secure.

This locomotive is gaining some steam...

I am with you (and so is a decent portion of the non-gun-toting legal establishment, according to the blogosphere).

I'd really like to see McDonald address the "bear" aspect, but I think we'll need to wait on Palmer. We will probably get more hints and innuendo, all aimed by the majority at "steering" future cases (Palmer).

I think the argument over the meaning of "bear arms" is a lot more clear than "the militia and the comma", but I think the anti's will fight it tooth and nail anyway.

So I handicap it as being in 2011, with the caveat that I want to be wrong and for you to be right. Dinner on me if you call this one right...

Working in the .Gov establishment and seeing how slow good things go (as opposed to 'bad' things, maybe even bad things), I (like Patrick) look to 2011 for MD positive outcomes.

I, like Patrick again, really hope that Krucam is right. I'd be in for splitting the cost of dinner and a couple of drinks.

The Alan's, Gura and Gottlieb speak post-McDonald

krucam said:

The Alan's, Gura and Gottlieb speak post-McDonald

Click to expand...

Awesome find.

Great catch.

Interesting that Gura said a "Good Win" would minimally include a fundamental view of the "right to keep and bear arms". Seems obvious, but I'm not sure what he hopes for in the "bear arms" part of the clause. He didn't directly argue the bearing aspects.

Transcript of McDonald oral arguments: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf

krucam said:

The Alan's, Gura and Gottlieb speak post-McDonald

Click to expand...

Great find.

Someone please buy him a directional microphone.

I so excite

Does Justice Stevens retirement have any effect on this case?

Papi4baby said:

Does Justice Stevens retirement have any effect on this case?

Click to expand...

Nope, he'll be staying on through the end of this session, which ends in June.

Stevens has been a thought leader on the Court and marshaled some decisions by getting fence sitters to go his way -- notably Kennedy. He's a big loss for the more liberal wing of the Court. I really don't know who can take his place.

Expect June 29th as the release date for McDonald. June 30th is the official last day but I figure there will be a big retirement party in the office that day.

-Boxcab

Patrick said:

Stevens has been a thought leader on the Court and marshaled some decisions by getting fence sitters to go his way -- notably Kennedy. He's a big loss for the more liberal wing of the Court. I really don't know who can take his place.

Click to expand...

From what I saw on Fox, apparently some dumbasses think Hillary should be on the court, how freaking scary is that!!!

Trapper said:

From what I saw on Fox, apparently some dumbasses think Hillary should be on the court, how freaking scary is that!!!

Click to expand...

I think the dumb ass was Orrin Hatch (R)...

krucam said:

I think the dumb ass was Orrin Hatch (R)...

Click to expand...

He and Hillary are best buds.

krucam said:

I think the dumb ass was Orrin Hatch (R)...

Click to expand...

The letter behind his name means squat to me, its still a scary freaking prospect, stuck for 30 odd years of that creepy bitch on the court... ugghhh, I just threw up a little.

Trapper said:

The letter behind his name means squat to me, its still a scary freaking prospect, stuck for 30 odd years of that creepy bitch on the court... ugghhh, I just threw up a little.

Click to expand...

No offense and my remark was probably my being in the political minority here...

I do agree that she would not be that ideal of a judicial appointee for a number of reasons. The rumor was stupid from the get go...

Back to McDonald....