McDonald Decision Date Bounty

[ezliving]

Countdown: 80 Hours.

 

[krucam]

I'm still in!! C'mon full-incorporation under P or I, with an overturn of Slaughterhouse!!

Cruikshank & Presser would be the easiest SCOTUS targets with or without PorI...I think they'll be mentioned, if not overturned, in the McDonald Opinion.

 

[Boxcab]

I keep asking myself if we are not missing the boat by not having a nice clean Maryland CCW denial ready to file court papers for June 29th. I'd pitch in some legal funds to help.

-Boxcab

 

[Inigoes]

I keep asking myself if we are not missing the boat by not having a nice clean Maryland CCW denial ready to file court papers for June 29th. I'd pitch in some legal funds to help.

-Boxcab

It sure would be nice to have the money to play the what-if game. The way money is right now, it might be more prudent to see the starting-point before running the race.

 

[krucam]

I keep asking myself if we are not missing the boat by not having a nice clean Maryland CCW denial ready to file court papers for June 29th. I'd pitch in some legal funds to help.

-Boxcab

It sure would be nice to have the money to play the what-if game. The way money is right now, it might be more prudent to see the starting-point before running the race.

Absolutely agree with this tactic. This will be the topic of another thread certainly. I'll be more than willing to throw in the $125 (+/-) and effort to get denied...I'm sure others would as well.

 

[Patrick]

"Machine Gun Sammy" Alito.

It's a horrible thing to "nickname" a sitting Justice, but I bring it up so that we can revel in the fact the Brady's are probably shaking right now. I think they coined that phrase for him? That said, I still think this case is going to be quite narrow on guns and won't give us the scrutiny we want (I think they'll punt on scrutiny again). We may have to wait a while.

Hope I am really wrong, though.

 

[krucam]

A very fun and well-written post on Calguns, regarding Alito and PorI. Monday is going to be interesting, the anticipation is killing me.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=315322

 

[Atlasarmory]

Absolutely agree with this tactic. This will be the topic of another thread certainly. I'll be more than willing to throw in the $125 (+/-) and effort to get denied...I'm sure others would as well.

+1

 

[Inigoes]

I have a stupid question.

Has there ever been a case where the SCOTUS heard oral arguments, and not issued an opinion or ruling?

 

[Patrick]

I was out all day yesterday and missed the fun, though I was watching with my iPhone. I have actually blocked out most of Monday afternoon for reading (I have a couple of patents that are potentially subject to Bilski).

Your thread, who's still in? I need some .45.

Inigoes...thanks for putting up that list of contenders. I pulled a thread dump a little while back and saved it my drive so I could do the same.

There may be multiple winners. If so, I'll honor for all as best I can (I only got so many LaRue hats).

 

[Patrick]

I have a stupid question.

Has there ever been a case where the SCOTUS heard oral arguments, and not issued an opinion or ruling?

Yes, and there is some talk it might happen Monday in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. The Justices had a hard time at the orals getting the two sides to even agree what they hell they should be ruling on. The 9th Circuit decision was only two sentences long.

Thus, as the Court later this week starts discussing the case in private, preparing to cast a preliminary vote, the first question it may have to resolve is whether the Justices on their own should reconstruct the factual record, make some assumptions about it and call that good enough to reach the constitutional issue, or return the case to a lower court with a command to get it sorted it out before the case moves another step toward final resolution.

There is a chance they'll remand it or hold it over pending more information. But given the time they've held it so far, consensus says they made up a question and answered it. There was a legitimate Constitutional Issue in there, hiding under bad arguments from both sides. Maybe they'll tackle it and leave the details of this case to the 9th to sort out.

It's not all glorious argument at the Court. Sometimes those Justices have to deal with nebulous cases -- making them work for their paychecks, for sure.

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

Krucam- thanks for the link that was interesting reading. Would that be the case.... but it strikes me as a whole but of what ifs. We'll know soon enough I guess.

 

[joppaj]

I will say that as much as I disagree with some of the Justices, they all have my grudging respect. To have to sort through some of these cases where I can barely understand the initial question, these are some sharp folks.

 

[ezliving]

I keep asking myself if we are not missing the boat by not having a nice clean Maryland CCW denial ready to file court papers for June 29th. I'd pitch in some legal funds to help.

-Boxcab

Have you considered that SAF and Gura may be way ahead of you? Have you had any conversations with either?

 

[ezliving]

Losers' Scheduled Panic Attack.....

Media Briefing on McDonald v. Chicago: MONDAY AT 1:30 EDT

06.25.10, 03:58 PM EDT

Attorneys, prosecutors, mayor, law enforcement official to review Supreme Court gun decision and implications for state and municipal efforts to fight crime

WASHINGTON, DC - Attorneys for Legal Community Against Violence will host a conference call with attorneys, political leaders, law enforcement officials and others to brief the media on McDonald v. Chicago on Monday, June 28 at 1:30 EDT. The Supreme Court is expected to announce the decision that morning.

McDonald marks the first time the Supreme Court has considered a challenge to gun violence prevention laws since its ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

The Court's decision will resolve whether the Second Amendment limits the power of state and local governments to regulate firearms.

Speakers will discuss the implications for current and future laws designed to protect public health and safety.
Participants should call 888-601-4774.

WHAT: Legal Community Against Violence Media Teleconference on McDonald v. Chicago

WHO: Robyn Thomas, Executive Director, Legal Community Against Violence
Charles M. Dyke, Partner, Nixon Peabody LLP, attorney for amici
Thomas McMahon, Mayor of Reading, PA
Scott Knight, Chief of Police, Chaska, MN; Chair, Firearms Committee, International Association of Chiefs of Police
David LaBahn, President and CEO, Association of Prosecuting Attorneys

WHEN: 1:30 p.m. EDT, Monday, June 28, 2010

WHERE: Conference Line: 888-601-4774

Event Title: McDonald v. Chicago Media Teleconference

Legal Community Against Violence is a public interest law center dedicated to preventing gun violence. Founded by lawyers, LCAV is the country's only organization devoted exclusively to providing legal assistance in support of gun violence prevention.

CONTACT: Mark Glaze, +1-202-271-0982, mglaze@rabengroup.com, for Legal Community Against Violence; or Robyn Thomas of Legal Community Against Violence, +1-415-433-2062, rthomas@lcav.org

 

[krucam]

Losers' Scheduled Panic Attack.....

Media Briefing on McDonald v. Chicago: MONDAY AT 1:30 EDT

06.25.10, 03:58 PM EDT

I'd love to dial in and listen to what should prove to be an interesting Panic Attack! I'll be busy dissecting the Opinion...I guess I could skip that and just listen to their take on it...

NOT!

 

[krucam]

Have you considered that SAF and Gura may be way ahead of you? Have you had any conversations with either?

SAF has been contacted on this approach, about 10am this morning...no exchange yet.

In addition to my info, I pointed them towards MSI.

Conversations with Gottlieb (SAF), Gura and McDonald will be available Monday at One First in DC:
http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seat...SCOTUS-ruling-in-SAFs-McDonald-v-Chicago-case

Alan Gottlieb is planning to join Alan Gura at the Supreme Court for Monday morning's ruling. This column is also advised that Otis McDonald will join them at the Supreme Court, where all three will be available to the media.

Wish I could be there...

 

[teratos]

"Machine Gun Sammy" Alito.

It's a horrible thing to "nickname" a sitting Justice, but I bring it up so that we can revel in the fact the Brady's are probably shaking right now. I think they coined that phrase for him? That said, I still think this case is going to be quite narrow on guns and won't give us the scrutiny we want (I think they'll punt on scrutiny again). We may have to wait a while.

Hope I am really wrong, though.

Wouldn't you think, since this is a ruling on a Constitutional Amendment that this will be reviewed with strict scrutiny? The founders clearly saw the Second Amendment as a fundamental right, and as such deserves that level.

 

[Patrick]

They used the word "Fundamental" in Heller but only to describe the origins of the right. Breyer specifically picked on the lack of declared scrutiny in that case. The answer from Scalia in Heller to that specific charge was, "we got time".

Also, Gura didn't ask the question in Heller. While it may seem plodding to us, he has a plan and is sticking to it. He's building up over time.

But to answer your question, yes - fundamental rights are typically deserving of strict scrutiny. The court has said as much. But many argue that though fundamental, the issues in 2A revolve around weapons and as such a lower standard is required. The decision in what is called "Heller II" came to that conclusion, specifically claiming that 2A/Heller required no more than intermediate scrutiny and that DC's current laws meet that threshold. This was not a surprise as it did come from a strongly liberal judge who is openly anti-2A. He cherry picked arguments from Steven's dissent in Heller.

There is a chance the Court is worried about more than the BoR's here. The fact is a newly recognized right is a bit of a Pandora's Box. Previous courts have also taken their time and let things flow out over several cases (1A is an example of this) so as to adjust mid-stream if required.

I am also impatient and would love to see strict scrutiny guidance flow from this case, but the question asked is really less about guns and more about the 14th. The next couple of cases (Nordyke/Sykes/Palmer) put the scrutiny question more directly in the lap of the court, because they rely on a strict interpretation of the right.

There is a line of opinion that by dispensing with the issue of Privileges or Immunities and the jurisprudence that comes from it, the court will spend more of their focus on the actual details of the gun laws in question. But the fact is, such a question was not asked.

Nordyke and Sykes are both being argued in California. Nordyke is already in the 9th Circuit and they are waiting on McDonald for an incorporation decision. The Nordyke complaint does hinge somewhat on a stricter scrutiny - an interpretation that will fall to the 9th if not defined here. That will influence Sykes likewise. Palmer is a different circuit, and as a result the case could be decided differently. The 9th is one of those circuits that many kinda ignore when it comes to precedent, as they are the most frequently overturned circuit by a large margin.

If we see "Substantive Due Process" come out of McDonald, we should all be happy and buying beers. Anything less leaves open a lot of doors (and doubt). We'll see.

 

[boricuamaximus]

Can we get back to the subject at hand and continue to blame Clandestine?

Seriously, how many of us had planned to buy an item that was previously known as a Class III title f2f at 7-11 this weekend but our plans were thwarted because of him and his 1911 puns?

That's the main reason Alito and Scalia own 1911's. Ginsburg and Stevens are glock types, Sotomayor as most Puertorican women just want a little Ruger .380.