This month, the Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in the combined cases of McDonald et al. v. City of Chicago and NRA et al. v. Village of Oak Park, Illinois, challenging Chicago's and Oak Park's handgun bans...The two Illinois cases, now commonly referred to as McDonald, follow the Court's landmark 2008 Heller decision, which struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban on Second Amendment grounds..."Can anyone point to where the High Court accepted any case other than the McDonald case filed by the Second Amendment Foundation? Because they did not accept the NRA's case for review.
I'm trying to square the G&A claim Cox makes about "combined cases" with this:
The Federal District Court, though not combining the three cases, acknowledged that all three were substantially the same lawsuits, and accepted Gura’s case rather than allowing all three to run through the court simultaneously, which is not uncommon.Sorry, but I've just seen too many times where credit has been an issue--and it's never been due to SAF.
And yeah, I'm aware of Paul Clement's due process argument. That still doesn't mean the cases were "combined."
Anyone have knowledge to let us know there's nothing to see here?
8 comments:
The cases were never “combined”. The SCOTUS well understands that Slaughterhouse was a wrongly decided case and that the court’s so-called “incorporation doctrine” was established as an end run around the intent of the 14th amendment. The reconstruction era 14th amendment scared the be-Jesus out of the then current politicians because; the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th means exactly what it says. Just as does, “… shall not be infringed.”
I’ve said all the above to say this:
The NRA gave the SCOTUS an “out” and the court took it. The gun-grabbers can live with “reasonable regulations” and “due process”. They have that already. Once the SCOTUS “allows” We The People to exercise our rights as long as we remain inside the chicken wire pen of “reasonable regulations” the media will be happy and the state can go back to business as usual. Daley will follow the lead of D.C. and will just tweak his ordinances to “virtually” (that is to say, almost) comply with the court’s decision.
[W3]
Just another case of NRA letting someone else do the heavy lifting them claiming the trophy.
David the NRA has lost its mind.
McDonald was taken to the SC by the SAF and the ISRA. The NRA is trying to take credit for something it did not do.
The above poster is also correct about the immunities and privileges in the 14th amendment. The NRA gave the SC an out by horning into McDonald by claiming due process. Immunity and Privileges means “shall not be infringed” would be the law of the land.
David the NRA is continuing to undermine gun owners in Illinois with HB5832 and that’s not the only anti-gun bill they allowed through without a challenge.
The NRA has to be stopped remember they are endorsing candidates like McCain, Reid and other shady characters like Kirk Dillard in Illinois; these are NOT pro-gun people!
According to Alan Gura, they were consolidated at the Appellate level in Jan. 09.
http://www.chicagoguncase.com/2009/01/28/opening-appellate-brief-filed/
"Despite being consolidated at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, the cases are different in scope in terms of the specific regulations challenged and the legal argument for applying the Second Amendment against state and local governments. The cases were appealed separately to the U.S. Supreme Court."
They were appealed separately to SCOTUS.
SCOTUS accepted McDonald and NOT the NRA case.
"Thirdpower" you are behind the curve.
The cases were "briefly" consolidated during the appeal at the 7th Circuit, but now they are separate again, having been appealed individually to SCOTUS for cert.
You cite Gura's comment from January 2009, but a more recent Wikipedia explanation at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago.
To simply stop history at Gura's explanation of what was going on in January 2009 is disingenuous.
No, not 'disingenuous', incorrect. It does occasionally happen and I admit when I'm wrong.
So how is that 'disingenuous'?
Post a Comment