Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Gura rides again, 'SAF Files Amicus Brief in Nordyke Case, Argues for Strict Scrutiny

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

    Gura rides again, 'SAF Files Amicus Brief in Nordyke Case, Argues for Strict Scrutiny

    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...101083959.html

    Quote Originally Posted by PRNews
    This case was a catalyst for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear SAF's case challenging the handgun ban in Chicago, because in an earlier Nordyke ruling subsequently set aside in favor of a full en banc hearing by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals created a conflict in the circuits over Second Amendment incorporation.

    SAF's brief was written by attorney Alan Gura, who argued the landmark 2008 Heller case and represented SAF and its co-plaintiffs in the recent McDonald case, and is currently working with the foundation on other cases in Maryland, Illinois, New York and North Carolina.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Strict scrutiny is a good thing.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NoVA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    431
    I'm confused about the status of this case. Is it about to go into the en banc hearing at the appellate level, or did that already happen and it's going back to the Circuit court? I don't think this is being considered for cert at the Supreme level yet, is it?

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    I believe returning to the Ninth Circus en banc.

    http://www.volokh.com/posts/1242774777.shtml

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    524
    Man, the ability to write/communicate/speak is just going right out the window in this country.

    The Nordyke case's importance, Gottlieb stated, "cannot be underestimated, or understated."
    You can say it shouldn't be underestimated or understated.

    Or you can say it cannot be overestimated or overstated.

    But saying it cannot be underestimated or understated....means it's insignificant.

  6. #6
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    En banc sent it back to the 3 judge panel after the supremes settled the incorporation issue with McDonald.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Teej View Post
    Man, the ability to write/communicate/speak is just going right out the window in this country.



    You can say it shouldn't be underestimated or understated.

    Or you can say it cannot be overestimated or overstated.

    But saying it cannot be underestimated or understated....means it's insignificant.
    Well, the man has a pretty good legal track record, so let's not throw him under the bus for an off-the-cuff remark, probably unprepared in advance.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by PavePusher View Post
    Well, the man has a pretty good legal track record, so let's not throw him under the bus for an off-the-cuff remark, probably unprepared in advance.
    Well, it's hard to throw someone under a bus. More practically, throw the person in front of the bus, and let the bus run over him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Hard perhaps, but not impossible.

  10. #10
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Thanks Fred.

    Quote Originally Posted by A.C. Brief
    But precedent is
    sometimes taken as a kind of Rorschach test, with parties and courts
    finding patterns and signals not predicted, much less intended, by the
    authors. Courts are thus understandably careful to occasionally
    disclaim any unintentional guidance. See, e.g., McDonald, 177 L. Ed.2d
    at 926 (providing “assurances” that “incorporation does not imperil
    every law regulating firearms”).
    Too right!
    Last edited by Doug Huffman; 08-23-2010 at 04:11 PM.

Posting Permissions

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