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

« Update on Bellesiles' recent affair | Main | A commentary on McDonald v. Chicago »

Update in Nordyke

Posted by David Hardy · 20 July 2010 11:12 AM

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

· Nordyke v. King

3 Comments | Leave a comment

Jim D. | July 20, 2010 1:22 PM | Reply

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.

RKV | July 20, 2010 1:42 PM | Reply

"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.

Brad | July 21, 2010 12:38 AM | Reply

Yes! There may be hope for Commiefornia yet!

Leave a comment