[ctdonath2]

Please stay on topic. Jokes are unwelcome, as they wrecked a prior thread on the subject.

[Drango]

I think the lack of a clear title wrecked the prior thread...What do you think?

[ctdonath2]

Trying again; maybe we can avoid the jokers this time.

[Paladin2]

A transcript would aid discussion.

[ctdonath2]

Today at the Court
McDonald v. Chicago argument
Erin Miller | Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010 8:59 am

The Court is expected to announce opinions at 10 a.m., which we will be live-blogging. Then the Court will hear argument in the gun rights case McDonald v. City of Chicago and in Hui v. Castaneda:

~10 a.m. – At issue in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521) is whether the Second Amendment’s individual right to keep and bear arms should apply (or be “incorporated” against) to state and local governments, through either the Privileges or Immunities Clause or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Lyle Denniston’s extensive background post on the case is here.

~11 a.m. – In Hui v. Castaneda (08-1529; 08-1547), the Court will consider whether “Bivens actions” may be brought against doctors and nurses in federal medical facilities regarding flaws in medical care claimed to violate patients’ constitutional rights, when patients may also sue under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Luke Appling, a student at Harvard Law School, previews the case this morning for SCOTUSblog.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/today-at-the-court-131/

h/t

[ctdonath2]

Sebastian from Snowflakes In Hell was there, and is Twittering. So was his SO BitterB.

[ctdonath2]

Twitter: SebastianSH
Out. Heard 5 minutes of argument. Mostly Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens grilling Gura on Incorporation.

[MindBender26]

Actually, the first McDonald's franchised restaurant was opened a few miles outside Chicago, in Des Plaines, Illinois.

(When telling FReepers not to joke, you be on you own, Sukka. :) No hard feelings)

[ctdonath2]

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-1521.htm

[Still Thinking]

Is there a link to an audio of the arguments?

[ctdonath2]

SCOTUSblog: Analysis: 2d Amendment extension likely

[mikelets456]

Being from NJ and having VERY restrictive gun laws and virtually no chance for CCW, wouldn’t that be considered an infringement of rights?

“Shall not be infringed” is pretty clear and have OGAM, no chance for CCW and a FID (2-6 month wait) is not exactly following what the 2A in the Constitution says.

Does this case only pertain to those states that are “denied” rights like Chicago? Would all states become “shall issue” states with only emphasis put on back ground checks and training? “Shall not be infringed” means no blocks, red tape or infringement against rights.

Like saying free speech (1A) applies to the states but all states have their “free speech” version? That would not be right...

[STARWISE]

# Sandy Froman outside. http://twitpic.com/1684t2 3 minutes ago via Seesmic

* Reply
* Retweet

#

RT @bitterb: Alan Gura & Otis McDonald are talking to the press. 6 minutes ago via Seesmic

* Reply
* Retweet

#

RT @SebastianSH: Dave Hardy: “I think we’ve got 5 votes.” 7 minutes ago via Seesmic

* Reply
* Retweet

#

Now Clement is talking about the NRA’s argument. 11 minutes ago via Seesmic

* Reply
* Retweet

#

The Pacific Legal Foundation is getting up to talk about the libertarian issues up for debate. 12 minutes ago via Seesmic

* Reply
* Retweet

#

We’re waiting on pro-Second Amendment speakers. 14 minutes ago via Seesmic

* Reply
* Retweet

#

RT @SebastianSH: Clement surrounded by NRA http://twitpic.com/1682ka 16 minutes ago via Seesmic

* Reply
* Retweet

#

Brady Campaign President speaking to media. http://twitpic.com/16826z 19 minutes ago via Seesmic

* Reply
* Retweet

#

@MrStevenYoung We were only allowed for 5 minutes with the crowd. 32 minutes ago via Seesmic in reply to MrStevenYoung

* Reply
* Retweet

#

Dick Heller is outside. about 1 hours ago via Seesmic

* Reply
* Retweet

#

We’re outside again. We heard about 5 minutes. Breyer was running down Gura’s time with questions about statistics & how they impact cases. about 1 hours ago via Seesmic

* Reply
* Retweet

#

Inside now. about 2 hours ago via Seesmic

* Reply
* Retweet

#

Two more pro-gun protesters are here now. A group from Calguns Foundation is on the way. about 2 hours ago via Seesmic

* Reply
* Retweet

#

The guy in line behind us speculated that security is scared because of NRA members are here. Very uneducated. about 2 hours ago via Seesmic

* Reply
* Retweet

#

One pro-gun protester has arrived. about 2 hours ago via Seesmic

http://twitter.com/PAGunRights

[ctdonath2]

Ping (but you found it already).

[TornadoAlley3]

[The Pack Knight]

I’m still not pleased that the NRA horned in on the arguments. The Due Process argument really doesn’t need to be made any stronger than it was. This seems to me to be a simple case of glory-hounding.

As I was trying to say before the last thread was locked, I was infuriated by the NRA's repeated attempts to sabotage Heller.

I'm a lifelong gun owner, but there isn't much chance I'll join the NRA now. If I want to contribute money to the cause, I'll give it directly to the Second Amendment Foundation or to the Cato Institute.

[ctdonath2]

Volokh Conspiracy: First News Report[s] on the McDonald Argument

[bunkerhill7]

2nd Amendment precedents:

http://rescuefinder.0catch.com/2ndAmendment.html

[South40]

"Because I'd rather have something than nothing".

The reason one Chicago woman gave when asked by CNN why have the ban when the city still leads the nation in gun deaths.

Gun bans don't work. One only need look at Chicago for proof.

[ctdonath2]

Reminder of the official core issue:

08-1521 MCDONALD V. CHICAGO
DECISION BELOW:567 F.3 856
CERT. GRANTED 9/30/2009
QUESTIONS PRESENTED:

Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated as against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities or Due Process Clauses.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 08-4241, 08-4243, 08-4244

[Brytani]

I just finished reading the BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE filed by th ADL in support of Chicago, in defense of retaining the ban on firearms ownership.

Basically the ADL’s contention is - The country is filled with hate groups, anti-government groups and hate criminals. The US is in a “rage” over Obama’s election; therefore everyone is going to purchase a gun and go on a shooting spree.

According to their warped logic any anti-Government protest is hate, every crime is hate related, anti-government speech is hate, objection to Obama is; yes you got it, hate.

OH NOES!!!

Americans should have no constitutional rights until they walk in lock-step with the ADL’s position on every issue. They even defend, as they call it, “common sense” restrictions on speech, as a reason to ban firearms.

I was surprised they didn’t name Tea Parties, Townhall meetings and marches on DC as hate movements; though you can read their “hate” of them between the lines as they claim hate groups are on the rise since Obama was put into office. We can’t have people speaking out against “The Won” or the government in the ADL’s fantasy world.

Here’s to hope the USSC slaps down Chicago along with the ADL and restores rights the government and courts never had the power to take away in the first place.