Oral arguments in Chicago gun case

[dldeuce]

The Chicago gun case on 2nd amendment incorporation was argued before the 7th circuit court of appeals today. Listen to the oral arguments here. Based upon the judges comments, it seems likely to me that they will rule against incorporation, leaving the issue to the SC.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[mcp1810]

I don't know....... It sounded to me like they slapped both sides around a little bit. I could see them doing like they mentioned and ruling against on precedent while in their opinion arguing that they should be over ruled. But yeah, I can see this going to SCOTUS.

[nutz4utwo]

They really did not discuss the actual issue much. Most of the time was spent arguing about how it was not their job to address the issue. "Our hands are tied, we have no authority, we are not SCOTUS, don't ask us" that sort of mentality.

I don;t think the incorporation question has been properly answered. We have bits and pieces from other rulings, but it has never been the primary issue of SCOTUS. Hopefully, they see that and respond.

[torgo1968]

It's also asking for trouble to take too much from oral arguments. Judges very often use oral arguments to take Devil's Advocate positions, testing both sides for the solidity of their cases.

[dldeuce]

I was just surprised at how dismissive the judges were to the argument that they should even consider ruling for incorporation. You would think, based up on their reaction, that there was flat no case to make, and yet the 9th circuit court of course ruled in favor. There's already a disagreement between the 9th and 2nd circuit courts, so I guess it's already going to the SC.

[farronwolf]

Yep, they hit all sides pretty hard, trying to get them to pin the court down as to why this particular court would be required to make a decision on this case. I believe they will find a way to pass the buck and send it on to the SCOTUS.

Whether the SCOTUS takes it on is another question all together. I doubt they will.

What strikes me as odd, maybe I am just to ignorant to understand, is how the SCOTUS can choose incorporation on certain articles and not on other articles or simply choose not to address the issue as they have so far in the 2A.

[MitchellCT]

What strikes me as odd, maybe I am just to ignorant to understand...

Wow. That opens you up to a cheap shot, but as it's too easy, I'll refrain.

Find a Constitutional Law Textbook and check the index for "slaughterhouse cases".

The answers you are looking for stem from those cases. Don't just read the holdings. Read the reasoning and see how it effects the matter today.

[tflhndn]

The irony is, that SCOTUS is much more likely to take up the issue of incorporation if the 7th circuit rules against incorporation, because it will result in a split among the circuit courts (given 9th cricuits ruling saying the 2A is incorporated.)

Further, it seemed clear to me the appellate panel felt the 2A should be incorporated, but felt they were bound by precident to leave the issue to SCOTUS. It also seemed clear to me that the NRAS attorneys expected it and are okay with (and maybe even hoping for) the 7th circuit ruling against them so SCOTUS will take up the issue.

[farronwolf]

Wow. That opens you up to a cheap shot, but as it's too easy, I'll refrain.

Find a Constitutional Law Textbook and check the index for "slaughterhouse cases".

The answers you are looking for stem from those cases. Don't just read the holdings. Read the reasoning and see how it effects the matter today.

I am aware of those cases, but the same reasoning was not used in all of the cases from my understanding. Oh well.

And it doesn't bother me to admit ignorance on a subject, much better than just being stupid.

[dldeuce]

The irony is, that SCOTUS is much more likely to take up the issue of incorporation if the 7th circuit rules against incorporation, because it will result in a split among the circuit courts (given 9th cricuits ruling saying the 2A is incorporated.)

There is already a split with the 9th circuit ruling for incorporation and the 2nd circuit ruling against it in Maloney v. Cuomo.

[press1280]

The irony is, that SCOTUS is much more likely to take up the issue of incorporation if the 7th circuit rules against incorporation, because it will result in a split among the circuit courts (given 9th cricuits ruling saying the 2A is incorporated.)

Further, it seemed clear to me the appellate panel felt the 2A should be incorporated, but felt they were bound by precident to leave the issue to SCOTUS. It also seemed clear to me that the NRAS attorneys expected it and are okay with (and maybe even hoping for) the 7th circuit ruling against them so SCOTUS will take up the issue.

This goes to SCOTUS over Maloney/Nordyke, because it's a clear self-defense issue with a protected weapon(handgun), they will use the privleges/immunities argument(which the 7th circuit admitted many judges have been grumbling about), and with that they'll have many other groups filing amicus briefs in support(not because of 2A issues, but P & I) issues. It's just going to be too much for them to pass on.

Only issue is that Maloney will be able to file for cert. before McDonald.