05FLHT Posted March 14, 2011 at 11:14 AM Share Posted March 14, 2011 at 11:14 AM Link provided by Gene Hoffman on Calguns - http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Ezell/ezell_reply_brief-2011-03-11.pdf It's a very good read with Gura really laying the smack down. My two favorite parts - Defendant incredibly avers as its regulatory interest the reduction in firearms possession. But there can be absolutely no regulatory interest in suppressing a fundamental constitutional right—no matter how vehemently the City disagrees with the Supreme Court; and As for Defendant’s current lack of regulation, Defendant needed only three days to craft the Nation’s most Byzantine gun ordinance. It will take Defendant less effort to conform to normal American practices—and limit further complex litigation in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted March 14, 2011 at 01:43 PM Share Posted March 14, 2011 at 01:43 PM Nice to see me quoted on page 8! This, of course, is the money shot: Buried in Defendant’s brief is the following dispositive concession:Of course, learning to use, aim, and fire a gun contributes to safeand effective use of a gun in self-defense, as Chicago’s ownregulations recognize. We agree therefore that the availability oflive-fire training has some relation to residents’ ability effectively toexercise Second Amendment rights.Def. Br. 32.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneshot Posted March 14, 2011 at 01:50 PM Share Posted March 14, 2011 at 01:50 PM Nice to see me quoted on page 8! Nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted March 14, 2011 at 02:36 PM Share Posted March 14, 2011 at 02:36 PM Epic smack-down. Chicago looks so much like a mentally-challenged dog chasing it's own tail. I love reading Gura's briefs. His use of language is fantastic. Can we hope for a decent and reasonably justified ruling out of the 7th circuit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted March 14, 2011 at 02:46 PM Share Posted March 14, 2011 at 02:46 PM Epic smack-down. Chicago looks so much like a mentally-challenged dog chasing it's own tail. I love reading Gura's briefs. His use of language is fantastic. Can we hope for a decent and reasonably justified ruling out of the 7th circuit? We are always allowed hope...as distant and far-fetched as it may be... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Posted March 14, 2011 at 09:58 PM Share Posted March 14, 2011 at 09:58 PM Epic smack-down. Chicago looks so much like a mentally-challenged dog chasing it's own tail. I love reading Gura's briefs. His use of language is fantastic. Can we hope for a decent and reasonably justified ruling out of the 7th circuit? We are always allowed hope...as distant and far-fetched as it may be... I don't think the 7th will go anywhere near agreeing with Gura. This was state by a friend and I believe he absolutely nails the issue. I personally believe it will take at least one more trip to SCOTUS to get this done. It takes three cases to "make" an amendment. Proper to those three cases, your constitutional right really doesn't exist. First case is, "do we think this constitutional right actually exists?" (Heller proved that) Second case is, "Should we apply this to the states?" (McDonald proved that) Third case is "Just how much should the government be allowed to infringe upon this right?" According to SCOTUS ( who made this up with no legal backing) there is no such thing as an absolute right. The government has the right to infringe upon all Constitutional rights, to varying degrees. Some rights are very protected, others are essentially meaningless. If SCOTUS rules that any law that affects the 2nd Amendment requires "strict scrutiny" then we are there. If we win Strict Scrutiny, which is entirely possible, there will be a blitzkrieg of pro-RKBA and the majority of them will succeed. If you think things are moving fast and far, you ain't seen nothing yet. But, if we get "rational basis" review, then we're hosed. The antis will win amd there will be a constant erosion of the RKBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted March 14, 2011 at 10:09 PM Share Posted March 14, 2011 at 10:09 PM I think it will ultimately be nuanced, like the First Amendment. We'll have strict scrutiny on total bans and with respect to the law-abiding, but intermediate scrutiny for felons and other prohibited persons. I also feel that what comprises a prohibited person will ultimately have to have due process, such as a judge's ruling, convictions, etc. rather than simple hearsay as our opponents would like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted March 14, 2011 at 10:19 PM Share Posted March 14, 2011 at 10:19 PM I think it will ultimately be nuanced, like the First Amendment. We'll have strict scrutiny on total bans and with respect to the law-abiding, but intermediate scrutiny for felons and other prohibited persons. I also feel that what comprises a prohibited person will ultimately have to have due process, such as a judge's ruling, convictions, etc. rather than simple hearsay as our opponents would like. I am in agreement with FF's take on this issue. And would go further to suggest that "ultimately" might be a very long time in coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Posted March 14, 2011 at 10:30 PM Share Posted March 14, 2011 at 10:30 PM I think it will ultimately be nuanced, like the First Amendment. We'll have strict scrutiny on total bans and with respect to the law-abiding, but intermediate scrutiny for felons and other prohibited persons. I also feel that what comprises a prohibited person will ultimately have to have due process, such as a judge's ruling, convictions, etc. rather than simple hearsay as our opponents would like. I am in agreement with FF's take on this issue. And would go further to suggest that "ultimately" might be a very long time in coming. me too. and with you. I think I am too old to see the end of this fight. But my son will see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted March 14, 2011 at 11:13 PM Share Posted March 14, 2011 at 11:13 PM Incorporation of First amendment guarantees began at least 80 years ago ... and the jurisprudence is still being developed (eg. Synder v Phelps, 2011). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05FLHT Posted March 15, 2011 at 12:45 AM Author Share Posted March 15, 2011 at 12:45 AM But, if we get "rational basis" review, then we're hosed. The antis will win amd there will be a constant erosion of the RKBA. Rational basis is dead as a doornail, at least for the 'core' 2nd rights. As far as the ranges, Chicago shot themselves in the foot by requiring training for their permit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mstrat Posted March 15, 2011 at 03:39 AM Share Posted March 15, 2011 at 03:39 AM Heller already affirmed that strict scrutiny needs to be applied to the 2nd Amendment. What am I missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted March 15, 2011 at 10:59 AM Share Posted March 15, 2011 at 10:59 AM Heller already affirmed that strict scrutiny needs to be applied to the 2nd Amendment. What am I missing? We wish. No, Heller only affirmed that rational basis review is off the table. Whether it's intermediate or strict, and to what infringements those would apply, remain very much to be worked out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylok Posted March 16, 2011 at 02:53 AM Share Posted March 16, 2011 at 02:53 AM Garand, I'm glad you stick around here even though you're now in a free state. You can explain things so us lamens can understand this shhh stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Gwinn Posted March 18, 2011 at 12:12 AM Share Posted March 18, 2011 at 12:12 AM I really think Gura indulges himself and has a little more fun writing against Chicago. You can read a certain sly smile between the lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Roark Posted March 18, 2011 at 01:46 AM Share Posted March 18, 2011 at 01:46 AM O'Bama would perhaps [not] like to see a few gun ranges built in Chicago: Citation 1:... As President Obama noted, theAmendment “provide for Americans the right to bear arms for theirprotection, for their safety, for hunting, for a wide range of uses.” Clever as a fox. Amusing and topical citation by Alan Gura. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danielm60660 Posted April 15, 2011 at 02:37 PM Share Posted April 15, 2011 at 02:37 PM Did Obummer actually say, "a wide range of uses"? Wow, quite a statement from a liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted April 15, 2011 at 11:59 PM Share Posted April 15, 2011 at 11:59 PM Did Obummer actually say, "a wide range of uses"? Wow, quite a statement from a liberal. ? What does your statement mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundguy Posted April 17, 2011 at 10:48 PM Share Posted April 17, 2011 at 10:48 PM Did Obummer actually say, "a wide range of uses"? Wow, quite a statement from a liberal. Yes, Daniel. In a joint press conference with the President of Mexico on March 3, 2011, President Obama said in part... "The Second Amendment in this country is part of our Constitution. And the President of The United States is bound by our Constitution. So, I believe in the Second Amendment, it does provide for Americans the right to bear arms for their protection, for their safety, for hunting, for a wide range of uses. That does not mean that we can't constrain gun runners from shipping guns into Mexico. And so we believe that we can shape an enforcement strategy that slows the flow of guns into Mexico while at the same time preserving our Constitution..." President Obama was answering a question from a Mexican Journalist re "Presidential Veto powers" over our Second Amendment. It seems that Mr Gura keeps up to date on quotes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted April 18, 2011 at 02:50 AM Share Posted April 18, 2011 at 02:50 AM Can we use Obama's quote against the antis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyre400 Posted April 18, 2011 at 03:09 AM Share Posted April 18, 2011 at 03:09 AM Can we use Obama's quote against the antis? Of course we can, but doubletalk and duplicity are acceptable amongst many of the anti's...They'll simply write it off as some sort of political posturing, and give him an out - "Because the big ol NRA owns Washington". Just like with the debt ceiling. Senator Obama was against raising it, but president Obama is all for it - yet none of the obamites will call him on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted April 18, 2011 at 04:57 AM Share Posted April 18, 2011 at 04:57 AM Can we use Obama's quote against the antis? Of course we can, but doubletalk and duplicity are acceptable amongst many of the anti's...They'll simply write it off as some sort of political posturing, and give him an out - "Because the big ol NRA owns Washington". Hmmm... I bet we can use it to round up the people who can't think for themselves in the first place over to our side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyre400 Posted April 18, 2011 at 06:15 AM Share Posted April 18, 2011 at 06:15 AM Can we use Obama's quote against the antis? Of course we can, but doubletalk and duplicity are acceptable amongst many of the anti's...They'll simply write it off as some sort of political posturing, and give him an out - "Because the big ol NRA owns Washington". Hmmm... I bet we can use it to round up the people who can't think for themselves in the first place over to our side. Yes. Sorry - that was your point. It would work nicely for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.