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 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« CalGuns Fdn and SAF challenge Calif carry permit law | Main | A college student shooting that will never make the national media »

Antis amicus in Chicago case

Posted by David Hardy · 5 May 2009 04:46 PM

Clayton Cramer discusses "Embarrassingly Bad Amicus Brief in the Chicago Case.". He does a good job of taking its historical claims apart, and has a link to it.

I read it and think his title justified for a different reason as well. Legal citation is done to the standard of the Blue Book (at various times the White Book, etc.). This brief has ... well, it reads as if nobody had ever read that set of standards. It cites to State reporters without West reporters, or West without State, inserts the court's name next to the date when which court it was was already apparent from the cite, got the title of the case wrong, etc.. It'd be astonishingly sloppy work for a routine trial court brief, but for an appellate brief on an new and important issue, is about unbelievable.

· Chicago gun case

12 Comments | Leave a comment

Don Hamrick | May 5, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply

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.

Carl in Chicago | May 5, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply

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.

Carl in Chicago | May 5, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply

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

Letalis Maximus, Esq. | May 5, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply

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

Obviously the author was not on law journal.

robert | May 5, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply

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

Brad | May 6, 2009 12:12 AM | Reply

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?

Peterp | May 6, 2009 8:40 AM | Reply

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.

Melancton Smith | May 6, 2009 9:16 AM | Reply

Maybe Posner will latch on to the arguments...

Carl in Chicago | May 6, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply

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

Melancton Smith | May 6, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply

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.

Carl in Chicago | May 6, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply

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.

:-)

Carl in Chicago | May 6, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply

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.

Leave a comment