• 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.

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

D

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2010/06/who-ordered-mcdonalds-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?
 
rodbender

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
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.
 
J

jmelvin

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
2,195
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
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.
 
Thundar

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
TFred

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 
AL Ranger

AL Ranger

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
238
Location
Huntsville, Alabama, USA
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.
 
Bob Warden

Bob Warden

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
192
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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
Click to expand...
Agree 100%. The justices already know where they stand before orals. Just a show.
 
Dreamer

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
imported post

rodbender wrote:
Clarence Thomas has said that oral arguments are useless.
Click to expand...

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"... :lol:
 
O

oneeyeross

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
500
Location
Winlock, , USA
imported post

Dreamer wrote:
rodbender wrote:
Clarence Thomas has said that oral arguments are useless.
Click to expand...

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"... :lol:
Click to expand...
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.
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
KBCraig

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
W

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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.
Click to expand...
Due Process
 
H

hoffmang

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
120
Location
Peninsula, Bay Area, CA
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top