Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Supreme Court Case

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    44

    Post imported post

    Hi All, I would like to know if anyone has heard that the NRA'S case (NRA vs Chicago) been denied but Alan Gura's case (McDonald vs Chicago) will be heard. I am askind because i heard on 11/26 or 27/09 on Glenn Becks radio program in which he had Alan on who said that the NRA'S case has been denied but Alan's will be heard, does anyone have any info on this. Some people say this is wrong but i know what i heard.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Anubis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Arapahoe County CO, ,
    Posts
    451

    Post imported post

    I think what happened was that SCOTUS thinks the NRA v Chicago case duplicates the McDonald v Chicago case and was abeyed until McDonald is decided.

    You can see NRA v Chicago was neither granted nor denied certiorari by going tohttp://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/docket.htmland searching for08-1497, then following the same link on the nextpage.

    The NRA submitted an excellent merits brief for McDonald, and many other groups also submitted amicus curiae briefs supporting McDonald. The text of the briefs can be accessed via http://www.abanet.org/publiced/previ...ed.html#081521

    It is very interesting to read the "in favor of neither party" brief of the Brady bunch. It was obviously written by someone who sees incorporation resulting from this caseas a slam-dunk. For Heller, Brady wrote a brief for DC's side, this time theyhave a neutral stance.






  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
    Posts
    412

    Post imported post

    Anubis wrote:
    I think what happened was that SCOTUS thinks the NRA v Chicago case duplicates the McDonald v Chicago case and was abeyed until McDonald is decided.

    You can see NRA v Chicago was neither granted nor denied certiorari by going tohttp://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/docket.htmland searching for08-1497, then following the same link on the nextpage.

    The NRA submitted an excellent merits brief for McDonald, and many other groups also submitted amicus curiae briefs supporting McDonald. The text of the briefs can be accessed via http://www.abanet.org/publiced/previ...ed.html#081521

    It is very interesting to read the "in favor of neither party" brief of the Brady bunch. It was obviously written by someone who sees incorporation resulting from this caseas a slam-dunk. For Heller, Brady wrote a brief for DC's side, this time theyhave a neutral stance.




    Brady, neutral? Don't think so.

    If you actually read the brief and came to that conclusion, might I suggest a reading comprehension course?


  4. #4
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    I believe the cases were combined as being essentially testing the same provision (incorporation of the 2nd through the 14th).
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  5. #5
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Post imported post

    The Brady camp has seen the writing on the wall and are attempting to get the most restrictive standard of revue possible after incorporation.

    My take on it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Anubis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Arapahoe County CO, ,
    Posts
    451

    Post imported post

    brboyer wrote:
    If you actually read the brief and came to that conclusion, might I suggest a reading comprehension course?
    Thanks for the suggestion.

    lockman wrote:
    The Brady camp has seen the writing on the wall and are attempting to get the most restrictive standard of revue possible after incorporation.
    Exactly, although what they argue for is a lesser standard than "strict scrutiny" in an attempt to keep many of our 20,000+ gun laws from eventually being tossed after incorporation.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    lockman wrote:
    The Brady camp has seen the writing on the wall and are attempting to get the most restrictive standard of revue possible after incorporation.

    My take on it.
    Yup.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •