T minus 3 days and counting......

till SCOTUS hears arguements for the chicago gun case.

:popcorn:

i'm going to be in class and lab all day on monday....i guess ill have to catch it on repeat...but still im excited and i def will be checking this forum for minute to minute updates while in class (shh...don't tell my gross anatomy prof lol)

guess ill get to hear about it first hand

As a 60 plus year resident of Chicago, the results are pretty predictable.

Daley thinks his sheer force of personality will appeal to the court because his approach is "common sense" and that stupid constitution thing, that's just getting in his way of running the city the way he knows is best. (In the meantime please ignore the high Chicago and Cook County crime rate and all those gang shootings, that's obviously the fault of those evil downstate gun shops, and the people in Indiana with concealed carry)

Chicago, as most of the constitutional law experts expect, will have their ban overturned. Daley will immediately put an onerous registration system and fee in place which will again be challenged. Daley will have no problem ignoring the SCOTUS decision and using his personally owned city council to keep the resulting cases in court for years and years with one scheme after another. Federal fines are no problem, that's what taxpayers are for.

No news there.

Great example of ignoring Federal directives. The FAA was having hearings on closing Meig's Field that week and Daley decided to "screw it" and sent in Bulldozers in the middle of the night to close the field and wreck the runways while there were still planes parked there.

When Chicago was fined, Daley just hiked property taxes and blamed the Feds for it.

He's a petty tyrant surrounded by crooked sycophants, and that's his good side.

No government official can arbitrarily raise taxes to pay for his crimes.

Used to fly up for the machinery show. Was great to hit the Museum of Science and Technology. I know a lot of pilots, who, like me, refuse to spend a nickel in Chicago since Dick(head) Daley vandalized Meigs.

But Chicago is still run by the best politicians money can buy. At least when Al Capone kicked the mayor down the steps of City Hall, you knew who owned them.

the gun ban is going down, the only question is how many justices are going to kill it

I wish they were. This would make great CSPAN material.

also they release the audio almost immediatly afterwards

It was interesting to say the least. I seem to remember it was live but I could be confused in my old age.

Gura will generally make you nuts listening to him. I suppose without the non-verbal communication it loses some context.

.. and it took a couple of days for the audio to be posted, iirc.

I had to listen to NPR's Nina Totenberg's (sp?) interpretation of it at first, but hey, she's a great legal correspondent.

After Heller, she said that the court decided 5-4 that 2A applied to individuals. This was not the case. All nine judges agreed that 2A is an individual right. The question was whether they could still exercise that right with the DC gun ban.

"The court ruled as the Brady Campaign predicted. We are heartened to see that the justices did acknowledge that tight regulations on firearms are indeed constitutional. We don't anticipate that there will be any drastic changes to gun laws in municipalities. Nothing to see here. Please move along."

The dissent admitted it in their brief, but you have to do digging for it, it's not obvious.

I frequent another gun site, that shall remain nameless, that offered up a live audio link. I remember all the drama clearly. Or I could be nuts.

I think Heller was much more widely anticipated and got more attention than McDonald is likely going to receive.

http://www.c-span.org/Topics/Supreme-Court-Judiciary.aspx

It'll be there if it's anywhere.

"...in a 21-part National Public Radio series on fire-arms, legal reporter Nina Totenberg informed listeners that there is no debate on the Amendment "in America's courts, its law schools, or its scholarly legal journals. Indeed, even the NRA could not recommend for this broadcast a single constitutional law professor who would defend the Second Amendment as conferring on individuals the right to bear arms.

(snip)

"Ms. Totenberg is nearly right about the lack of meaningful debate, though not as she presented it. Of 60-plus law review articles treating the Amendment that have appeared since 1980, only a handful defend the position she presents as unquestioned -- and that handful appears generally in minor journals authored by officers or lobbyists for anti-gun groups. Even its most vehement opponents are compelled to recognize that the individual right view now represents the 'standard model' among scholars writing on the Amendment."

Don B. Kates, criminologist and civil liberties lawyer.
THE GREAT AMERICAN GUN DEBATE, Kates & Kleck.

Ms. Totenberg is also mistaken in her view that the Constitution "confers" rights. It recognizes rights.

the "reporter" read that SCOTUS has decided that individuals can keep "hunting" rifles at home for protection. I was so pissed. . .until I got home and could read it for myself. Just a little bias there from that "reporter" I'd say.

So whatever favors the rights of gun manufacturers will come out on top.

It's quaint that anyone believes that they will consider individuals over corporations.

according to the court records its a man vs a city...

sit up all night thinking up this crap?

Now I'm going to have to make a new one...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x176951