General Categories > Laws and Legislation

Chicago vs. McDonald heard today

<< < (2/3) > >>

Jesse T:
The general consensus is that the hearing went "well" for the good guys.  

Also go read this satire of the entire proceedings. quite hilarious. :D

http://www.politicsgunsandbeer.com/2010/03/02/my-summary-of-the-oral-arguments/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicsgunsandbeer+%28Politics%2C+Guns+%26+Beer.%29

RLMoeller:
Thanks for the link Jesse, that is excellent!

Dtrain323i:
I was pleasantly surprised by Paul Clement. He did a very good job of supplementing Gura's arguments. Gura should have known that Privileges and Immunities would never fly. Slaughterhouse wasn't getting overturned and he should have recognized that.

Hardwood83:
I have read a lot of commentary on this that ranges from: 'it went ok' to 'OUTSTANDING!'. I am confident they will hand down the obviously correct decision- of course the 2nd Amendment is incorporated, just like all the others. The question is will it be a strict or broad scrutiny? Will they allow for any 'reasonable' restriction that a crap-hole like Chicago can dream up, or set the bar high. My guess is it will be a lot like the DC v Heller case. It will answer THE question, but provide little guidance and many more lawsuits will follow to shape things. 

It is very discouraging that the very intelligent people entrusted with interpreting the Constitution and have spent their lives studying the law seem so mystified by it's obvious and clear intent. It is more troubling that several of them are NOT mystified at all, but know exactly what it states- they simply don't care.   

AAllen:
Gura had been requested by the court to include the Privileges and Immunities clause, I think they were looking for a new and exciting reason to take a look at it.  The dicission then was made that Gura and the SAF would go that route and Clement and the NRA would argue the due process clause, that way all the bases were covered and they gave the court what it requested.  Chicago basically did a poor job of arguing either.  The problem is there really isn't a new reason to invoke the Privileges and Immunities clause that the court has not already to some degree shot down in the Slaughterhouse cases, unless you want to argue that court failed to due it's job and bowed to political pressure (which it did, but thats a loosing argument).

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page