« Update on Bellesiles' recent affair | Main | A commentary on McDonald v. Chicago »
Update in Nordyke
Yesterday the 9th Circuit panel issued an order:
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
The parties are ordered to file supplemental briefs addressing:
(1) the impact of McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521, 2010 WL
2555188 (U.S. June 28, 2010), on the disposition of this case; and
(2) any other issue properly before this court, including the level of scrutiny
that should be applied to the ordinance in question.
Such briefs shall be no longer than fifteen (15) pages each and shall be filed
simultaneously no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this order.
Any amicus curiae brief addressing the issues identified above shall be no
longer than fifteen (15) pages, shall be filed simultaneously with the parties’
supplemental briefs, and shall otherwise comply with Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 29.
. . . . .
The time and location of oral argument, if any, will be set by separate order
of the court.
JUL 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
3 Comments | Leave a comment
"If the Supreme Court had wanted to declare the Second Amendment right a fundamental right, it would have done so explicitly." R. Urbina, DC court, March 2010 in Heller v. DC (2)
"a provision of the Bill of Rights thatprotects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Governmentand the States. See ... We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amend-ment right recognized in Heller."
Alito, McDonald majority, June 2010
Fundamental right = strict scrutiny. Of course, depending on how our employees rule, that and $3 will get you a cup of coffee. The worst case would be to define strict scrutiny for the 2nd Amendment in such a way as to vitiate the right.
Yes! There may be hope for Commiefornia yet!
Interesting. The 9th Circuit wants to establish "scrutiny" for the "fundamental right" to "keep and bear" arms.
I predict this pig-in-a-poke will end in yet another en banc review. The same judges that asked for a review of the establishment decision will not be happy with strict scrutiny, and vice versa.