Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: From The War on Guns, 'Who Ordered the McDonald's Combo?'

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2010/0...lds-combo.html

    NRA-ILA's Chris Cox has a column about the McDonald case in the July issue of Guns & Ammo. It's not online that I can find, but here's something I'm having trouble with:
    This month, the Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in the combined cases of McDonald et al. v. City of Chicago and NRA et al. v. Village of Oak Park, Illinois, challenging Chicago's and Oak Park's handgun bans...The two Illinois cases, now commonly referred to as McDonald, follow the Court's landmark 2008 Heller decision, which struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban on Second Amendment grounds..."
    Can anyone point to where the High Court accepted any case other than the McDonald case filed by the Second Amendment Foundation? Because they did not accept the NRA's case for review.

    I'm trying to square the G&A claim Cox makes about "combined cases" with this:
    The Federal District Court, though not combining the three cases, acknowledged that all three were substantially the same lawsuits, and accepted Gura’s case rather than allowing all three to run through the court simultaneously, which is not uncommon.
    Sorry, but I've just seen too many times where credit has been an issue--and it's never been due to SAF.

    And yeah, I'm aware of Paul Clement's due process argument. That still doesn't mean the cases were "combined."

    Anyone have knowledge to let us know there's nothing to see here?

  2. #2
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    No, they were not combined, as far as I know.

    Guns & Ammo are heavy investors in NRA. They spend a lot of ad money with them. The NRA lawyersstole 10 minutes of Alan Gura's time at the high court. Because of this time "allotted to NRA", they will claim they were combined. This will be the reason that NRA will, again, be able to (or at the very least try to)steal the glory from SAF.

    Another reason NOT to be a member of NRA.

    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201

    Post imported post

    I am generally not a fan of the NRA, but from my understanding of the McDonald case, the NRA likely did gun owners a large service by their take on the 2A argument, in that it was far more likely to be won than Gura's, privileges and immunities argument. Gura's argument hinged on the2A being considered a part ofprivileges and immunities enjoyed by citizens of the US (not expanded to visitors), however it would have required turning over SCOTUS decisions for very limited privileges and immunities that have stood for about 120 years and would likely have been a very difficult case to win, because it would have overturned such a longstanding jurisprudence.

    The argument that the NRA took (I can't remember it off-hand) would not require overturning such longstanding jurisprudence to win and resultingly made it much more likely for getting a good result out of the McDonald case.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    jmelvin wrote:
    I am generally not a fan of the NRA, but from my understanding of the McDonald case, the NRA likely did gun owners a large service by their take on the 2A argument, in that it was far more likely to be won than Gura's, privileges and immunities argument. Gura's argument hinged on the2A being considered a part ofprivileges and immunities enjoyed by citizens of the US (not expanded to visitors), however it would have required turning over SCOTUS decisions for very limited privileges and immunities that have stood for about 120 years and would likely have been a very difficult case to win, because it would have overturned such a longstanding jurisprudence.

    The argument that the NRA took (I can't remember it off-hand) would not require overturning such longstanding jurisprudence to win and resultingly made it much more likely for getting a good result out of the McDonald case.
    Those argumentswould have beeneasy for Gura to make in about 2 minutes. NRA did nothing but reduce the time available for Gura to argue the merits ofa highstandard of review for state and local laws. This is where we really win or lose and this is where the NRA has again hurt the cause of gun rights.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  5. #5
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    I don't really think it made that much difference. Compared to the libraries of briefs and prior case information, the relatively minuscule amount of information that can be exchanged in 60 minutes of oral arguments ends up being a source for sound bites, or in the case where the arguments are not recorded, "sound quotes".

    The Justices are going to rule based on their understanding of the case, I would be hard pressed to believe they are often really swayed by the oral arguments, in any case.

    TFred


  6. #6
    Regular Member AL Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    238

    Post imported post

    It was my understanding that the NRA did not want to proceed with the Heller case because they thought it was "too risky" and may not have been a win for the 2A. Now that Heller was successful, the NRA is backing these court cases trying to prove how potent their organization is. I'd much rather back groups like GOA or SAF than the NRA.
    Check out my home page @ www.alabamaopencarry.com and Carry On!

  7. #7
    Regular Member Bob Warden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    192

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    I don't really think it made that much difference. Compared to the libraries of briefs and prior case information, the relatively minuscule amount of information that can be exchanged in 60 minutes of oral arguments ends up being a source for sound bites, or in the case where the arguments are not recorded, "sound quotes".

    The Justices are going to rule based on their understanding of the case, I would be hard pressed to believe they are often really swayed by the oral arguments, in any case.

    TFred
    Agree 100%. The justices already know where they stand before orals. Just a show.
    Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. -The Who

  8. #8
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Clarence Thomas has said that oral arguments are useless.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  9. #9
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    Clarence Thomas has said that oral arguments are useless.
    And that could explain why he never asks any questions! At least he's consistent.

    TFred


  10. #10
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    Clarence Thomas has said that oral arguments are useless.
    I'd be willing to be that if someone checked his movie rental records, we might find that he ACTUALLY has a very different attitude about "oral discourse"...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501

    Post imported post

    Dreamer wrote:
    rodbender wrote:
    Clarence Thomas has said that oral arguments are useless.
    I'd be willing to be that if someone checked his movie rental records, we might find that he ACTUALLY has a very different attitude about "oral discourse"...
    While that allegation is an old one, it sure seems strange that she didn't bring it up until he was being nominated to be one of the Supremes... She followed him from one job to another for YEARS...

    You know, it ain't rape just because the check bounces.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    SNIP The Justices are going to rule based on their understanding of the case, I would be hard pressed to believe they are often really swayed by the oral arguments, in any case.
    A company that helps attorneys with their writing once interviewed a number of the justices. The question about oral arguments came up.

    http://lawprose.org/interviews/supreme_court.php
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509

    Post imported post

    jmelvin wrote:
    I am generally not a fan of the NRA, but from my understanding of the McDonald case, the NRA likely did gun owners a large service by their take on the 2A argument, in that it was far more likely to be won than Gura's, privileges and immunities argument.
    Quite a few NRA apologists (that's not directed at you, by the way) ran around after the Heller decision, publicly issuing great sighs of relief, and "Thank God the NRA was able to save this case from Alan Gura's inept oral brief!"

    That whole argument is a great example of the fallacy of stasis: it assumes that the argument Gura presented is exactly the same argument he would have presented if the NRA hadn't been granted 10 minutes of his time.

    That's preposterous, of course. And to be fair to the NRA, if they had been the sole counsel for the plaintiffs, they wouldn't have stuck with a single issue, either. Both Gura and the NRA counsel knew what the other would argue. In short, they played a good cop/bad cop routine.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Doug et al,

    Have you read the oral arguments yet?


    http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...ts/08-1521.pdf

    Let me know if (after reading it) you feel the court will use the argument of Gura or of Clement (or of Feldman) in their Decision.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    jmelvin wrote:
    I am generally not a fan of the NRA, but from my understanding of the McDonald case, the NRA likely did gun owners a large service by their take on the 2A argument, in that it was far more likely to be won than Gura's, privileges and immunities argument. Gura's argument hinged on the2A being considered a part ofprivileges and immunities enjoyed by citizens of the US (not expanded to visitors), however it would have required turning over SCOTUS decisions for very limited privileges and immunities that have stood for about 120 years and would likely have been a very difficult case to win, because it would have overturned such a longstanding jurisprudence.

    The argument that the NRA took (I can't remember it off-hand) would not require overturning such longstanding jurisprudence to win and resultingly made it much more likely for getting a good result out of the McDonald case.
    Due Process
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Peninsula, Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    120

    Post imported post

    The strongest champion of P or I incorporation is Clarence Thomas who hasn't opened his mouth during oral argument in at least 4 years. As such, the oral argument transcript is bereft of the concept's strongest supporter.

    Have you ever thought that Thomas may not have gone along with Due Process incorporation as he thinks it's Constitutionally incorrect?

    The opinions in this case (and it will be more than 2) are going to be very interesting../

    -Gene


Posting Permissions

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