Supreme Court Case

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.

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/preview/briefs/unscheduled.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.

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/preview/briefs/unscheduled.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.

Click to expand...

Brady, neutral? Don't think so.

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

imported post

I believe the cases were combined as being essentially testing the same provision (incorporation of the 2nd through the 14th).

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.

imported post

brboyer wrote:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Yup.