MCDonald vs Chicago SCOTUS minutes

[Salty1]

Not sure how many people have been following this as closely as I have, if interested the below link will take you to the minutes. From the below link just scroll down to McDonald vs City of Chicago.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_argu ... ripts.html

[Greybeard]

Thanks for posting. I just showed up here to look for this. Might make for some "light reading" before bedtime.

[mikeintexas]

Light reading? Wow, I'll have to wait for the movie. My ADD kicked in quickly!

[suthdj]

23 pages in and my brain hurts.

[A-R]

Fascinating. I actually read through the whole thing rather quickly. About half before dinner and half after.

Some notations I made while reading for those who want "Cliff's Notes" version, or better yet the highlights (like a Supreme Court version of "SportsCenter"):

BREYER: Now, think of this, too: That when you have the First Amendment, or some of the other amendments, there is always a big area where it's free speech versus a whole lot of things, but not often free speech versus life. When it's free speech versus life, we very often decide in favor of life. Here every case will be on one side guns, on the other side human life.

What an utterly ridiculous argument and a preposterously false choice. "guns on one side and life on the other"? Can guns and life NEVER be on the same side Mr. Justice?

SCALIA: There is a lot of statistical disagreement on whether the Miranda rule saves lives or not, whether it results in the release of dangerous people who have confessed to their crime but the confession can't be used. We don't -- we don't resolve questions like that on the basis of statistics, do we?

Nice counter point to Breyer's ridiculous point that a statistical analysis somehow gives Chicago the right to ban certain guns.

BREYER: Here we have right in the amendment written a militia-related clause. And the way that -- the way -- the way that the right might be incorporated in respect to that is light years different. From the way it might be interpreted if you think what it is, is the right to have a gun to shoot a burglar. They are just two separate things.

What is he doing still arguing the Militia Clause? That argument was decided in Heller. 2A RKBA is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. You lost. Get over it. (note: this line of argument actually continues straight through page 28 line 18)

BREYER: let's make up an imaginary importance of ordered liberty chart, and we give it to James Madison and the other framers. And he would say insofar as that right to bear arms is important for the purpose of maintaining the militia, it's high on the ordered liberty chart. Insofar as the right to bear arms is there to shoot burglars, it's low on the ordered liberty chart.

Where is Suzanna Hupp when you need her? It's not about militias, it's not about burglars, and it's certainly not about hunting ... RKBA is about all of us out here protecting ourselves from all of you up there.

JUSTICE SCALIA: See, the right to keep and bear arms is right there, it's right there in the Bill of Rights. Where do you find the right to self-defense?

MR. FELDMAN: Well, I -

JUSTICE SCALIA: You -- you want us to impose that one on the States but not -- not the explicit guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. That seems very strange.

One of many great examples of Justice Scalia, and to a lesser extent Roberts and Kennedy just OWNING the counsel arguing the City of Chicago's side.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

IIRC, the NRA's side of the case was argued by 2 lawyers.

I sure hope they win this one for all gunowners in all states.

The news said that the decision on this case would probably not
be announced until late June 2010. That's when SCOTUS breaks
for the summer.

SIA

[KD5NRH]

Haven't made it that far in, yet, but am I the only one that thinks, on pages 6 and 7, Scalia's trying to lead Gura into saying "It may not be the easy way, but it's the right way?"

[jimlongley]

Haven't made it that far in, yet, but am I the only one that thinks, on pages 6 and 7, Scalia's trying to lead Gura into saying "It may not be the easy way, but it's the right way?"

And when you read all the way to the end, you'll find that he eventualy does say substantially that.

[casingpoint]

What is it that has...been caused by it--Sonia Sotomayor

Oh, Lord. Here we go...

[chabouk]

Haven't made it that far in, yet, but am I the only one that thinks, on pages 6 and 7, Scalia's trying to lead Gura into saying "It may not be the easy way, but it's the right way?"

The justices who favor an argument frequently treat the counsel most harshly, as a way of working all the bugs out before they retire to private session.

[tomneal]

Looks like we'll get the decision from the Supreme court on Monday 6/28/2010.

[joe817]

Looks like we'll get the decision from the Supreme court on Monday 6/28/2010.

Thanks for the heads up tomneal! I've been wondering when the decision would come down.

[ErnieP]

Monday is Justice Stevens last day on the bench....

[C-dub]

Monday is Justice Stevens last day on the bench....

Oh, wow. Totally forgot about that. I hope he's in the minority. Although, it would be nice if he were in the majority with the other justices explaining why the 2A also applies to the states and it were 9-0.

[baldeagle]

I think it's clearly not going to be 9-0. I expect both Breyer and Stevens to be in the minority for sure. Sotomayor is a little harder to read, but if she stays true to her beliefs, she will join the minority as well. I think this decision may be like Heller - 5-4. Possibly 6-3 if Sotomayor or Souter joins the majority. I think Breyer seems bitter about losing Heller. At least he comes across that way to me. The only true wild card, in my mind, is Souter. He could switch to the majority if he thinks that Heller changed the game.

In any case, there are some intriguing things in Heller, and I think there will be more in McDonald. Remember, Heller retained the right of the city of Washington D.C. to require that the respondent obtain a license to have a gun in his home. The court hinted that the requirement might be too broad. Heller also stated

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

What gets me most about the legal opposition that insists that the 2nd Amendment only applies to militia is that they fail to admit that even then citizens are allowed to keep and bear arms. If you concede that the militia clause is valid, how are the people supposed to get the guns to serve in the militia? From the government? Then you've completely divorced the prefatory clause from the operative clause. Somehow the guns necessary to serve in the militia are to magically appear when needed? It defies logic.