7th Circuit Court Ruling On Chicago Gun Ban

[ezliving]

Be nice if Maryland would listen but we're Maryland.

Chicago isn't listening either. They are in denial. They were dragged, kicking and screaming, into this court case.

O'Malley (and Frosh) desperately needs to be smacked with The Constitution.

 

[ezliving]

Appellants’ Brief
NRA Appellants’ Brief

Appeals Court: Amici Curiae Briefs

• Law Enforcement Amicus Brief
• Law Professors/Constitutional Accountability Center
• Seventh Circuit Legislators
• Institute for Justice
• Congress of Racial Equality Brief
  

 

[jpk1md]

The number of Justices that are supposed to sit on the SCOTUS is not determined in the US Constitution unfortunately.

Don't be surprised when Pelosi/Obama/Reid try to change the US Statute that limits SCOTUS to 9 Justices and ups it to 11 or 13 in order to pack the court and get the decisions that they WANT to support their agenda.

Chances are that this case is going to go to SCOTUS and you all better keep your eyes out for stealth legislation that allows the O-Shtapo to pack the courts.

 

[mikec]

The question then is, since the last president to raise the number of Justices was FDR, how would the people and Congress react? The Liberal/Socialists need to be careful. Attempting to change the numbers could backfire and make the moderates walk away and take their majority with them. Any attempt would look like a power move, and I don't know if that would work.

 

[ezliving]

The City of Chicago's Brief:

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/appellees_brief_mcdonald.pdf

 

[teratos]

O'Malley (and Frosh) desperately needs to be smacked with The Constitution.

You may as well hit them with anything. They don't seem to be aware of the contents of the Constitution.

 

[gamer_jim]

The City of Chicago's Brief:

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/appellees_brief_mcdonald.pdf

So this was the defendants view on what the case should be, correct?

My legalize is not that good.

Then we wait for the plaintiffs view on the case?

Then what happens?

 

[ezliving]

So this was the defendants view on what the case should be, correct?

My legalize is not that good.

Then we wait for the plaintiffs view on the case?

Then what happens?

From Alan Gura on www.chicagoguncase.com

Many peope have asked, “so when will we see something from the city?”
Today, your wait is over. The city’s brief is here.
In another week, the other side’s amici. And then, May 1, our reply.
Argument? TBD by the Court. My guess is as good as yours, but we will post that information here whenever it arrives.

 

[c&rdaze]

Honestly, I don't think it will get to the Supremes. What district court, much less appelate court, is going to read Heller and decide that the 14th amendment doesn't apply? Aside from the 9th, that is?

Well, I think we are all surprised with the 9th in the resent news about incorporation of the 14th.

 

[ezliving]

From Alan Gura on www.chicagoguncase.com

Earlier this week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Second Amendment does, in fact, bind state and local governments via application of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court’s opinion in the landmark case of Nordyke v. King adopts the same logic as our arguments in this case, with respect to selective incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. And it disposes of many of the same tired arguments raised by Chicago in defense of its indefensible gun ban. Congratulations to the Nordykes’ lawyer, Don Kilmer, for a job well done.

Although the regulations at issue in Nordyke were upheld, we suspect that other irrational and arbitrary state- and local-level gun laws in the Ninth Circuit, serving no useful purpose, will eventually yield to the Second Amendment rights of the American people. And we eagerly anticipate the day – ever closer – that Chicago residents will enjoy their Second Amendment rights as well.

Towards that end, the Seventh Circuit has now scheduled argument in our case for Tuesday, May 26, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. I look forward to arguing the matter. Have a great Memorial Day weekend.

 

[ezliving]

From Alan Gura on www.chicagoguncase.com

I’ve now posted the various amici briefs for the other side on our case filings page.
Our reply briefs will be filed May 14, and will be up on the site as well shortly after they’re in.

• Illinois Municipal League/Winnetka/Skokie
• Chicago Board of Education, et al.
• “History” Professors
• U.S. Conference of Mayors

 

[ezliving]

Alan Gura has posted his reply to Chicago's arguments: http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/final_chicago_reply_brief.pdf

 

[ezliving]

Cocktails! Grab a comfy chair....

Hear the audio of the pleadings of the Chicago Gun Case in the Appeals Court in Chicago.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/NU1BDL2I.mp3

 

[pilotguy]

Chicago isn't listening either. They are in denial. They were dragged, kicking and screaming, into this court case.

The comments about Chicago are similar to when Chicago mayor Daley bulldozed a small airport in the middle of the night--stranding aircraft there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meigs_Field

"In 2001, a compromise was reached between Chicago, the State of Illinois, and others to keep the airport open for the next twenty-five years. However, the federal legislation component of the deal did not pass the United States Senate. In an illegal move on March 30, 2003, Mayor Daley ordered private crews to destroy the runway in the middle of the night, bulldozing large X-shaped gouges into the runway surface.[7] The required notice was not given to the Federal Aviation Administration or the owners of airplanes tied down at the field, and as a result sixteen planes were left stranded at an airport with no operating runway, and an incoming flight was diverted. The stranded aircraft were later allowed to depart from Meigs' 3,000 foot (914 m) taxiway.[8]

Mayor Daley defended his actions, described as "appalling" by general aviation interest groups, by claiming it would save the City of Chicago the effort of further court battles before the airport could close. He claimed that safety concerns required the closure, due to the post-September 11 risk of terrorist-controlled aircraft attacking the downtown waterfront near Meigs Field.[9] In reality, closing the airport made the airspace less restrictive. When the airport was open, downtown Chicago was within Meigs Field's Class D airspace, requiring two-way radio communication with the tower.[10] The buildings in downtown Chicago are now in Class E/G airspace, which allows any airplane to legally fly as close as 1,000 feet (300 m) from these buildings with no radio communication at all.[11]

Editorials in the Chicago Tribune pointed out that "the issue is Daley's increasingly authoritarian style that brooks no disagreements, legal challenges, negotiations, compromise or any of that messy give-and-take normally associated with democratic government." [12] Daley himself played the populist against the general aviation pilots who had previously used the airport because of its ideal location. [9]"

 

[ezliving]

The Seventh Circuit Cout of Appeals in Chicago kicked the can on down the (wrong) road to the SCOTUS. That was predictable, if you listened to the audio of the oral arguments.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/O01FG3GF.pdf

 

[K-Romulus]

The Seventh Circuit Cout of Appeals in Chicago kicked the can on down the (wrong) road to the SCOTUS. That was predictable, if you listened to the audio of the oral arguments.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/O01FG3GF.pdf

link didn't work, but I was able to track down the opinion here:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?dname=opinion

 

[Norton]

7th Circuit Court Ruling on 2nd amendment

Can anyone find the text of the ruling handed down today? I can't get the document to come up.

Basically, it sounds like they decided to let it get kicked back up to SCOTUS since this now creates a conflict in interpretation between the 9th and 7th regarding the 2nd.

This could be it.....one way or another.

 

[jmira]

this one?

 

[zoostation]

That looks like the one to me.

Summary here:

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2...grees-with-sotomayor-on-second-amendment.html

 

[...]

yeah ok, so let's restrict the first amendment on this thread. you need a background check and there is a mandatory 30 day wait between posts.

free speech can be restricted by states and they can also search you when ever they want since the 4th amendment can be restricted too. Happy days