·11250 Waples Mill Road · Fairfax, Virginia 22030 ·800-392-8683
Posted on 11/18/2009 11:01:39 AM PST by neverdem
| NRA Files Brief in McDonald v. Chicago |
| Tuesday, November 17, 2009 |
| On November 16, the NRA filed its brief with the U.S. Supreme Court as Respondent in Support of Petitioner in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The NRA brief asks the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. In September, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the McDonald case, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. That court incorrectly claimed that prior Supreme Court precedent prevented it from holding in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment. As we argued at the time, the Seventh Circuit should have followed the lead of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Nordyke v. King, which found that Supreme Court precedent does not prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. As a party in McDonald, the NRA is actively involved in this case and we believe the brief makes a clear and strong case in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment. Read the brief here: http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/NRA08-1521.pdf |
Gura's brief is linked in comment# 1 of this thread. It's about ninety percent of a "privileges and immunities" argument from the 14th Amendment. IMHO, that's a much better argument to fend off the nanny state. I haven't read the NRA's brief yet.
Nonsense. The P&I clause was never intended to be used as a vehicle to run roughshod over the States.
The Slaughterhouse cases were appropriately decided. Gura is right on guns, but he is purposely using the P&I clause to grant the courts enormous power to remake the nation in whatever image they desire.
If the courts creatively re-interpret the P&I clause in the manner in which Gura suggests, the courts will run wild. Think about what Reinhardt would do with the P&I clause if he were permitted to use it. You will have a permanency of abortion on demand, the redefinition of marriage, and a host of other problems.
Of course this is exactly what Gura, the liberaltarian wants.
How do you square that with "The right to life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"?
Is it not true that a person is a person from the moment of conception til the moment of death.
That's in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Is it not true that a person is a person from the moment of conception til the moment of death.
Yes, it is true, but that won't stop the Court from using the P&I clause to find a permanent right to abortion on demand.
Read Gura's brief. The P&I clause was intended to be used as a vehicle to prevent the state from running roughshod over the new freedmen. It's a protection from unjust state laws. Claims of due process can defend laws disarming felons, not just violent felons.
The Slaughterhouse cases were appropriately decided.
I couldn't find anyone making that case.
If the courts creatively re-interpret the P&I clause in the manner in which Gura suggests, the courts will run wild. Think about what Reinhardt would do with the P&I clause if he were permitted to use it. You will have a permanency of abortion on demand, the redefinition of marriage, and a host of other problems.
Authoritarians would fear that. I don't. Life begins at conception. Who argues otherwise? Only those who proudly call themselves homosexual or queer, a fairly small percentage of the population, say homosexual marriage is normal, and that it is something other than a man and a woman being married. Saying hat you can redefine marriage implies polygamy and bestiality is covered by the P&I clause. I doubt it.
Of course this is exactly what Gura, the liberaltarian wants.
Hurling insults at Gura doesn't help your argument.
Gura is wrong. Why don't you read the Slaughterhouse cases instead of his brief.
I couldn't find anyone making that case.
Robert Bork.
Authoritarians would fear that. I don't. Life begins at conception. Who argues otherwise? Only those who proudly call themselves homosexual or queer, a fairly small percentage of the population, say homosexual marriage is normal, and that it is something other than a man and a woman being married. Saying hat you can redefine marriage implies polygamy and bestiality is covered by the P&I clause. I doubt it.
You should be concerned. The losertarians are touting the P&I clause as a means for the Courts to enact unrestricted hedonism. The libtards are looking for the courts to enact such things as a "right to equal education", "right to a shareholder society" and a "right to healthcare." Read Jack Balkin for a start.
Hurling insults at Gura doesn't help your argument.
It's not an insult, it's a fact.
No, we all possess inherent rights in Natural Law that are granted by the Creator apart from the Constitution. Good luck getting today's modern courts to recognize those rights though.
That's the point. The Courts don't look to the Declaration of Independence. They've completely rejected Natural Law. They use the Constitution as a means to an end. These are the people that will be using the P&I clause.
There is a reason that the liberals are wetting themselves with the prospect of bringing back the P&I clause from the dead.
That case was a joke and everyone knows it.
I couldn't find anyone making that case.
Do you rember a former freeper by the name of Robert Paulsen?
He used to go on all night preaching the value of the slaughterhouse case. Jim got so fed up with his antics that he sent him to never never land.
Robert Bork, no thank you. He's another statist. Thank God he was borked! If he was on the SCOTUS for D.C. v. Heller, Heller would have lost. Bork doesn't believe that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
That was not my original statement. It was my reiteration of freedomwarrior998's in comment# 2.
I remember Robert Paulson. Good riddance to another statist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.