• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

NRA Looses Incorporation at 7th Cir. - Chicago

W

wayneco

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
256
Location
Washoe County, Nevada, USA
imported post

This is rediculous -- what other RIGHTS aren't RIGHTS in states?

Does one not have free speech in a state?

The right against self-incrimination?

The right to be secure in one's belongings?

Now it goes to the Supreme Court and Scalia and Roberts need to settle this once and for all, the states need a much harder smack down than Heller this time, they need the bat to the head.
 
T

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
imported post

That the Constitution establishes a
federal republic where local differences are to be cherished
as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to
produce a single, nationally applicable rule. See New State
Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J.,
dissenting) (“It is one of the happy incidents of the federal
system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens
choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and
economic experiments without risk to the rest of the
country.”)
Click to expand...

They've been trying this "novel social experiment" for a while now. The results are disturbing, with crime in such places being worse than others without such overreaching laws. Seems you can't fix stupid.

Also, try this link: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=08-4241_002.pdf
 
Brass Magnet

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/O01FGA7H.pdf

It seems like a pretty reasonable opinion to me and pretty much what was expected. Many people hoped they would incorporate it but I think that even the NRA guessed this would be the outcome.

From the transcript:

[align=left]"If a court of appeals could disregard a decision of the Supreme Court by identifying, and accepting, one or another contention not expressly addressed by the Justices, the Court’s decisions could be circumvented with ease. They would bind only judges too dim-witted to come up with a novel argument."[/align]
[align=left]SCOTUS--“for it is this Court’s prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents.” 522 U.S. at 20. See also, e.g., [font=PalatinoLinotype,Italic][font=PalatinoLinotype,Italic]Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (2005).[/align]
[align=left]
Click to expand...
Although I don't agree with alot of the useless banter that the judges engaged in the decision is correct IMO. They just should have kept it short and sweet......like only the two quotes above.[/align]
[align=left]Besides, this only confirms the dispute among the circuits leading inevitably to SCOTUS. Let's just hope they hear it while there is still a likely 5-4 decision in favor of incorporation.[/align][/font][/font]
 
J

Jonesy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
416
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, USA
imported post

Brass Magnet wrote:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/O01FGA7H.pdf

It seems like a pretty reasonable opinion to me and pretty much what was expected. Many people hoped they would incorporate it but I think that even the NRA guessed this would be the outcome.

From the transcript:


[align=left]"If a court of appeals could disregard a decision of the Supreme Court by identifying, and accepting, one or another contention not expressly addressed by the Justices, the Court’s decisions could be circumvented with ease. They would bind only judges too dim-witted to come up with a novel argument."[/align]

[align=left]SCOTUS--“for it is this Court’s prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents.” 522 U.S. at 20. See also, e.g., [font=PalatinoLinotype,Italic][font=PalatinoLinotype,Italic]Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (2005).[/align]

[align=left]
Click to expand...
Although I don't agree with alot of the useless banter that the judges engaged in the decision is correct IMO. They just should have kept it short and sweet......like only the two quotes above.[/align]

[align=left]Besides, this only confirms the dispute among the circuits leading inevitably to SCOTUS. Let's just hope they hear it while there is still a likely 5-4 decision in favor of incorporation.[/align][/font][/font]
Click to expand...
Agree 100%. They kind of have to rule this way based on Supreme Court precedent. Heller did not incorporate the 2nd against the states people.
 
S

sjalterego

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
84
Location
, ,
imported post

Actually I would rather have the Chicago case go to the S. Ct. for incorporation. First, I think it unlikely that California will appeal the Nordyke decision to the S. Ct. Other ban banning groups would rather delay/avoid having the S. Ct. rule on incorporation. Second, the Chicago case involves nearly the identical ban/lawswhich the S.Ct. already addressed in Heller. Therefore the s.Ct. would not have to decide whether the particular gun ban violates the 2A IF the 2A applies. Heller already decided that. It is a very clean and simple case for the S.Ct. a pure issue of law. Is the 2A incorporated against the states or is it not.
 
The Donkey

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

sjalterego wrote:
Actually I would rather have the Chicago case go to the S. Ct. for incorporation. First, I think it unlikely that California will appeal the Nordyke decision to the S. Ct. Other ban banning groups would rather delay/avoid having the S. Ct. rule on incorporation. Second, the Chicago case involves nearly the identical ban/lawswhich the S.Ct. already addressed in Heller. Therefore the s.Ct. would not have to decide whether the particular gun ban violates the 2A IF the 2A applies. Heller already decided that. It is a very clean and simple case for the S.Ct. a pure issue of law. Is the 2A incorporated against the states or is it not.
Click to expand...
I would favor the New York nunchaku case. Since Sotomayor heard the appeal to the 2nd Circuit, she would probably need to recuse herself from the SCOTUS deliberations.
 
K

KS_to_CA

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
443
Location
National City, CA, ,
imported post

"Besides, this only confirms the dispute among the circuits leading inevitably to SCOTUS. Let's just hope they hear it while there is still a likely 5-4 decision in favor of incorporation."



AGREE. Question is, how fast can we send it up to SCOTUS before the 5-4 chance is lost. Surely a lot of forces will try to sway both sides to vote differently. And with the gun issues not a favorite topic of the liberals, we might see a lot of "delays".

This is going to be big once it reaches SCOTUS. Expect most if not all State AG's to submit their opinion.
 
Prophet

Prophet

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 29, 2008
Messages
544
Location
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

The Donkey wrote:
I would favor the New York nunchaku case. Since Sotomayor heard the appeal to the 2nd Circuit, she would probably need to recuse herself from the SCOTUS deliberations.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't for this reason. If kennedy gets squemish or picky on whether nunchuks are protected under the 2nd then he may vote against leading to a 4-4 tie thus upholding the lower courts decision. That MAY have fallout with other cases.

Let it be the Illinois case with either souter or sotomayer, barring a shocking surprise they probably would vote the same way on it so its a zero sum proposal.
 
Thundar

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

Prophet wrote:
The Donkey wrote:
I would favor the New York nunchaku case. Since Sotomayor heard the appeal to the 2nd Circuit, she would probably need to recuse herself from the SCOTUS deliberations.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't for this reason. If kennedy gets squemish or picky on whether nunchuks are protected under the 2nd then he may vote against leading to a 4-4 tie thus upholding the lower courts decision. That MAY have fallout with other cases.

Let it be the Illinois case with either souter or sotomayer, barring a shocking surprise they probably would vote the same way on it so its a zero sum proposal.
Click to expand...
+1 Prophet. I would, however prefer the 9th Circuit case with the NRA not in charge.
 
W

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Thundar wrote:
Prophet wrote:
The Donkey wrote:
I would favor the New York nunchaku case. Since Sotomayor heard the appeal to the 2nd Circuit, she would probably need to recuse herself from the SCOTUS deliberations.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't for this reason. If kennedy gets squemish or picky on whether nunchuks are protected under the 2nd then he may vote against leading to a 4-4 tie thus upholding the lower courts decision. That MAY have fallout with other cases.

Let it be the Illinois case with either souter or sotomayer, barring a shocking surprise they probably would vote the same way on it so its a zero sum proposal.
Click to expand...
+1 Prophet. I would, however prefer the 9th Circuit case with the NRA not in charge.
Click to expand...
What difference does it make who is in charge? The only valid reason to not wish the NRA to be in charge is so you don't have to give them credit if it goes FOR gun rights. Otherwise, whether the NRA is involved or not, we all should prefer that the outcome is FOR our 2nd Amendment Right.
 
F

Flyer22

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
374
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
imported post

This is one of those times where the right reasoning leads to the wrong outcome. The Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to the states. However, because of places like Chicago, the doctrine of incorporation, while technically incorrect, is the best way of ensuring that people can freely exercise their rights.
 
Brass Magnet

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Flyer22 wrote:
The Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to the states.
Click to expand...
How do you come to this conclusion? Even if you do come to this conclusion in the time frame of the countries founding how can you come to this conclusion upon ratification of the 14th?
 
W

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Flyer22 wrote:
This is one of those times where the right reasoning leads to the wrong outcome. The Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to the states. However, because of places like Chicago, the doctrine of incorporation, while technically incorrect, is the best way of ensuring that people can freely exercise their rights.
Click to expand...
Many States include very similar language in their Constitutions. Nevada has Section 11 for our 2nd Amendment Right. One difficulty is in getting the State, County, and City governments to understand it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top