Jump to content

Cook County fabricates McDonald Quote

Tvandermyde

By Tvandermyde
in Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion

Recommended Posts

Tvandermyde Member

Tvandermyde

Posted
Posted

SO-CALLED 'ELECTRONIC ERRORS' MAR COOK COUNTY'S DEFENSE OF GUN BAN

 

CONTACT: Richard Pearson, Illinois State Rifle Association, (815) 635-3198.

 

WEB SITE: http://www.isra.org

 

 

 

CHICAGO - - The following was released today by the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA):

 

 

The Cook County State's Attorney's Appellate Court defense of the county gun ban (Wilson, et. al. v. Cook County, et. al.) got off to a bad start when briefs filed by the county before the First District Appellate Court were found to contain factual errors. More specifically, these factual errors included the misquoting of U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago cases. (The ISRA was a Plaintiff in McDonald). When these errors were brought to light by the plaintiffs, the county hastily filed a motion to withdraw the erroneous briefs in favor of amended versions. Presently, the plaintiffs in the case have moved to strike the amended briefs as the amendments do not remedy the ramifications of the misquotes contained in the original set of briefs. In fact the County may have used their own "errors" to further violate the Court's rules and to additional arguments and bolster existing arguments in their amended brief.

 

 

"We find it interesting that the Cook County State's Attorney's office would blame 'electronic errors' for the tainting of its briefs with misquotes," commented ISRA spokesman, Richard Pearson. "This situation is made all the more curious given that the misquotes would fundamentally alter the intent of two landmark Supreme Court decisions – D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. In the county's briefs, the two high court decisions are erroneously quoted as addressing 'common handguns' whereas the decisions, as written, do not contain the phrase 'common handguns.' There is a clear difference when one addresses handguns versus 'common' handguns in that the latter would drastically reduce the types of firearms whose ownership is protected under the Second Amendment."

 

 

"If I were a cynic," continued Pearson, "I'd suggest that these 'electronic errors' were just poorly executed attempts by the Cook County State's Attorney's office to re-write the Heller and McDonald decisions more to Mayor Daley's liking."

 

 

_ _ _

The ISRA is the state's leading advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership. For more than a century, the ISRA has represented the interests of millions of law-abiding Illinois firearm owners.

 

 

# # #

 

I'll have more on this a bit later bu tI have to get to work......

Link to comment
Share on other sites
abolt243 Member

abolt243

Posted
Posted

Who are the attorneys of record on this brief? Curious to see if this is another Chicago nepotism job.

 

 

Here's the brief:

 

CookBriefSemiAutoBan.pdf

 

Cook County is the defendant so the Cook County State's Attorney's office authored the brief. The attorney names on the brief are: Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr.; Paul A. Castiglione; and Marilyn Fusco Schlesinger.

 

Ring any bells?

 

AB

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tvandermyde Member

Tvandermyde

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Cook County has fabricated a quote from SCOTUS in the McDonald case in their brief to the Appellate Court in Wilson. In their brief on the first page, the County quotes the McDonald and sets up their basic argument that the Heller court, and McDonald concurring, only protected possession of "common handguns" in the home. Citing a quote from McDonald they then write to the appellate court:

 

"The primary significance of McDonald is that it applies the Second Amendment, as construed in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), to State and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. McDonald also recognized the limited nature of the holding in Heller, stating as follows:

 

It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of common handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." (citation omitted)… We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents' doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms." Pg 1 brief of Cook County on remand to appellate court.

 

"McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3047 (emphasis added)"

Cook County ITALIZIED the words common handgun in their cite of McDonald. I added the bold to draw attention to it here.

 

The McDonald Court actually said:

 

"It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill," "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Id., at ______ (slip op., at 5455). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents' doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms."

 

The word "common" is not in the McDonald decision. It is a fabrication of Cook County. On page 2 they try to obfuscate their rewording of the McDonald cite with this:

 

"Therefore the Second Amendment does not apply to Cook County's Blair Holt Assault Weapon Ban (the "Assault Weapons Ban" or the "County Ordinance"), as this ordinance regulates the sale, ownership, and possession of high-capacity, rapid fire pistols, rifles and shotguns based upon specifically defined characteristics. It does not address conventional handgun "in common use" for home protection contemplated in Heller and McDonald. See Heller, 128 S Ct. at 2817 (recognizing that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep common handguns in the home as weapons "in common use…. But does not confer a right to weapons useful in military service M-16s and the like" Id.) see also McDonald, 130 S Ct. at 3047 (noting that Heller struck down a prohibition on "common handguns"). pg 2.

 

 

So now we have Cook County claiming that the Court defined handguns as "common handguns" twice. Cook County is clearly trying to make the appelate court believe that the Heller & McDonald courts were about "common handguns" and fabricated a quote from the McDonald court to justify the premsis of their arguments.

 

This isn't merely slicing or dicing a quote to edit it to make it show what you want it to by ommission. Cook County claims that the McDonald court used the term "common handgun" when trying to show the limitations they claim to be contained in Heller and McDonald. While everyone may be accused of being selective in their choice and use of of quotes or cites, but to insert words into a cite from a Supreme Court decision and portray them as the orginal language isn't just unethical, it's lying.

 

Add to it, it could not be a mistake as they added emphasis to the quote by italizing it and intending to draw attention to the phrase note the emphasis added in parentasis after the quote. It was not a mistake, it was an intentional fabrication.

 

While the county could have tried to make the argeument that the Heller court was talking about handguns in common use, they didn't just make the argument in their brief, they falsified a cite to justify it, and one of their major arguments of their brief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
abolt243 Member

abolt243

Posted
Posted

I see that they have changed the wording in the the decisions to try to further their position. Glad you found it and the plaintiffs are using it to further our side. Cook County needs to learn that you can't just make this stuff up as you go to suit yourself.

 

I wonder how valid "common handguns" or "handguns in common use" will be in arguing FOR the ban anyway. With the popularity of Glock, SA-XD, Ruger, and SW M&P pistols in the last few years, most of which have standard mag capacities higher than 10, it would be hard to argue that they are not "in common use" or even "common handguns".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Mac Member

Mac

Posted
Posted

Kudos to whomever is responsible for catching that misquote ... Todd?

 

At any rate, these ******** at Cook County need to pay for such blatant dishonesty.

I agree. Yet as it turns out, these clowns run the whole state with their made up laws to suit themselves. They care less that they are denying our constitutional rights. We can only hope for a courts ruling that will state that WE as citizens of the United States do have a right to protect ourselves no matter where we are at the time. Short of complete denial of gun laws in Illinois, the court system is our only hope of keeping our constitutional right to keep and BEAR arms. Pray the court does rule in our favor and place the Chicago machine in mothballs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarandFan Member

GarandFan

Posted
Posted

Well, what seemed especially blatant was their use of emphasis in the form of italics.

 

It's common and acceptable that while quoting a source, emphasis can be placed on certain terms by italics or bold or some such ... but only as long as it is made clear who is the source of the emphasis.

 

And one of the words Cook county emphasized in their brief was a complete fabrication. They not only misquoted the Supreme Court ... but they put emphasis on the misquote!

 

 

Anita Alvarez is the person who submitted the brief. I would like to see that lying, dirty bird prosecuted for perjury. It's only one word ... but she lied to a court of law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarandFan Member

GarandFan

Posted
Posted

I listened to Todd's NRA news bit ... man I wish that had major circulation. The most profound statement he made was the following (paraphrased):

 

It's ironic that Chicago, during McDonald, argued that because rifles and shotguns were allowed, they could ban handguns. Now, in Wilson, Chicago comes arguing that because handguns are allowed, they could ban rifles and shotguns.

 

Todd ... if that is not a situation of them turning reason completely on it's head, I don't know what is. Thanks for putting it that way. Profound. And it seems profoundly indefensible on their part, at least by those of us who know the score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...