It goes to my theory! Because the liberal 9th Circuit said the Second Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment all the anti-Second Amendment legal beagles are losing their minds! They lost their grasp of their deluded reality as the actual world is crashing in on them! But what do I know! I'm just a middle-aged merchant seaman.

Another possibility is that Nordyke had them so flustered and scrambling to alter their original brief that all kinds of mistakes were made.

I think this brief was filed 4 days after the expected date of two weeks following the filing of the Appellee's brief.

Remember ... Nordyke opinion came down the Monday prior.

Sorry ... second to last word in my 2nd paragraph above should be "Appellant's."

[Sniff loudly and curl upper lip in an intellectually haughty manner].

Obviously the author was not on law journal.

Yeah? Screw 'em. They are on the side of chains and slavery.

Hmm... could despair be the answer?

Maybe their heart isn't in it because they expected to lose from the very beginning. So they aren't even trying because they think it doesn't matter?

Perhaps they are so used to the courts accepting any gun control argument that they still can't wrap their minds around the concept of having to actually convince a court?
Just file a couple of lame arguments and the justices could be counted on to cherry pick only those that were palatable and ignore any mistakes or omissions.

Maybe Posner will latch on to the arguments...

Melancton:

I am becoming increasingly confident in concluding that the brief was indeed directed at Posner.

The brief, in great part, advances arguments that were foreclosed by Heller.

And Posner strongly disagreed with Heller.

"In Defense of Looseness"

http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=d2f38db8-3c8a-477e-bd0a-5bd56de0e7c0

Supposedly neither side will know who comprises the panel until oral argument day (May 26)...but then, this is Chicago Rules...

Could be they also think it likely he'll be on the panel.

Suits me...losing gets the case to SCOTUS quicker and puts the good guy in control of the case.

Indeed ... losing in front of the 7th would not be so bad. But ... the ban here is precisely what Heller overturned, and the only way to get there is incorporation of the 2A. I just don't see us losing this one ... even in front of Posner.

Besides ... folks here are itching to file suit to overturn the state's ban on the right to bear arms, and the county's ban on various single-shot firearms.

:-)

A reader asked me to clarify the county ban on "single-shot" firearms. Currently, Cook County IL prohibits possession of so-called "assault weapons." The ordinance provides a list of prohibited models, plus a "characteristic-based" criterion.

As everyone here knows, there is widespread public confusion that has been caused by the incessant use of the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" to describe semi-auto guns. The legal distinction is drawn between arms that are full auto/burst capable or not, but the pervasive use of "assault weapon" to refer to semis confuses the issue. Thus, I tend to think of and refer to any and all non-automatic firearms as single shot firearms. They are single shots because they fire a single shot per pull of the trigger. There are muzzle-loaded single shots, breech-loaded single shots, bolt/pump/lever action single shots, and self-loading single shots, etc. ... but they are all nonetheless single-shot firearms.