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

« Texas: Cash for Clunkers? | Main | Privacy Act request to report health plan objections »

Chicago brief opposing Sup. Ct. review

Posted by David Hardy · 6 August 2009 05:39 PM

In pdf, here. I'm not very impressed. The issue is whether the Court should take the case, but most of the (far too long) brief is on a theme of "if you take it we could win." OK, if they take it you'll have merits briefing to make the claim.

· Chicago gun case

4 Comments | Leave a comment

Graystar | August 6, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply

This just floors me. The answer to the first question is yes. It says so, explicitly and quite plainly, in the Cruikshank opinion.

“It [the fourteenth amendment] simply furnishes an additional guaranty against any encroachment by the States upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society. As was said by Mr. Justice Johnson, in Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 244, it secures 'the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government, unrestrained by the established principles of private rights and distributive justice.'”

This is word-for-word out of Cruikshank. How in the world can anyone read this to mean that the federal government isn’t supposed to protect us from violations of our fundamental rights by the states??

Kman | August 6, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply

Arguably the brief itself is unconstitutional if it is drafted by a state government and seeks to infringe upon a constitutional right. The court clerk should reject it on the basis that accepting it for filing would violate the constitution.

James | August 7, 2009 8:11 AM | Reply

I like how Chicago tries to tell the Supreme Court what it meant in _Heller_... And how they explicitly ignore the finding in _Heller_ that a law that allowed rifles and shotguns but not handguns was unConstitutional... I think they'll lose just on the "in common use" claims alone...

Melancton Smith | August 7, 2009 8:15 AM | Reply

So when Scalia and other members of the Heller majority read that bit about "allowing rifles and shotguns but not handguns" will that inspire them?

Also, will the justices overlook the blatant contradiction in Chicago's argument: 2A is not incorporated because it is not fundamental yet 2A is not incorporated because it pre-dates the Constitution?

Leave a comment