Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Heads up for VA residents | Main | Conflict over "may issue" permits in California »

District Judge rules for Chicago

Posted by David Hardy · 18 December 2008 01:06 PM

Story here. The article doesn't make it clear, but given that he'd ruled earlier, I assume this means he dismissed the case, that is, entered an appealable order.

Not a surprise to anyone. Even assuming the judge wasn't part of the local machine, the Circuit Court, which is over his head, ruled the other way in the original Morton Grove case, and he can't overrule them. But you have to raise the issue in front of him, anyway, in order to get the right to appeal.

· Chicago gun case

6 Comments | Leave a comment

DannyLK | December 18, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply

Ну точно, как все говорят, интересное рядом! :)

fwb | December 18, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply

..."but he can't overrule them."...

That is one of the major failings of the legal system and one of the greatest assets of science. No prior determination is taken at face value. Everything is questioned and tested over and over and if found wanting the prior determination is negated.

Just because a judge or group of judges determines night to be day, the rest of the judges are bound to follow. Too bad we can't get them to line up on a cliff behind a suicidal judge.

ALL judicial decisions should be questioned and should be overridden when the data prove it to be incorrect.

Dominus providebit!

Marcus Poulin | December 18, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply

What was he overruling though?


QUILICI V. VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982)

Was an anti-2nd Amendment decision.

Carl in Chicago | December 18, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply

Marcus:

Judge Shadur didn't over-rule anyone, just as expected.

Now the way is cleared for appeal to the 7th circuit.

FWB ... this is just perfect!

"Just because a judge or group of judges determines night to be day, the rest of the judges are bound to follow. Too bad we can't get them to line up on a cliff behind a suicidal judge."

That was the main jist of the ABA anti-2A amicus brief. Follow precedent, no matter what. Fools.

Letalis Maximus, Esq. | December 19, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply

The ABA sucks hot Muslim sphincter, in my view. I think it is nothing more than a liberal echo chamber. There is absolutely no reason for the ABA to involved, in any way whatsoever, in this case. I am not, and never will be, a member.

Bill | December 19, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply

"That was the main jist of the ABA anti-2A amicus brief. Follow precedent, no matter what."

Which would indicate a complete lack of understanding of how stare decisis actually works. I have run into too many law-school students (and grads) who think stare decisis is all about, and only about, adhering to precedent. Well yeah, that's the very general gist, to assure consistency in the legal system, thereby assuring stability and predictability. But it doesn't mean, drone-like, slavish, absolute adherence with no regard whatsoever to changed conditions, evolution of policy, new data, whatever.

Leave a comment