Oral Argument in McDonald v. Chicago(personal account)

americandaughter.com ^ | 2 March, 2010 | Alan Korwin

[marktwain]

This case was way more complicated than Heller.

Both attorneys faced hostility from the bench. Chicago’s lawyer got hit from all sides with little in the way of what you might call support. But the surprise was the way Alan Gura got blasted, even by the best friend gun-rights has up there, Justice Scalia.

Whoever or however we believed the Court might be ready to review the Privileges or Immunities clause of 14A was totally wrong. Every Justice had problems with the scope of such a decision, and poor Gura had to withstand withering assaults on his reasoning and approach.

I definitely need a transcript to go over what exactly happened, I thought audio was weak in chambers, complexity was way large, and in chatter afterwards found I wasn’t the only one. How those aging Justices keep up — and they did, note for note, cite for cite — is a bloody miracle.

BOTTOM LINE — it looks like the Heller majority may hold together for this case, and the Second Amendment will be incorporated against the states, under the familiar selective incorporation of Due Process. The same 2A that controls federal activity will apply to the states, no more, no less, though that issue of degree got a lot of attention. Not that the scope of 2A is all the well defined, but there was animus to the idea that incorporation would yield a “shadow” version for the states.

[marktwain]

Alan does a good job of reporting on the oral arguments.

[Bean Counter]

Good writeup and I will be eager to see what else he writes about this. If you have a pinglist going on this, please include me!

[hadit2here]

From the article:

plus Breyer’s astounding hostility towards guns in general (”guns kill!”), and Stevens’ ‘parading around with guns’ concerns...

I'd give my eye teeth and one of my testicles to have one of the lawyers tell those two Justices:

Your Honors, how many people that are killed by guns or how many people parade around in public with them have nothing whatsoever to do with this case. The whole thing has to do with a Constitutional right to own, possess and carry firearms of any type. That is all it comes down to. The Second Amendment states unequivocally that every person has those rights. So there is only one way you can rule because otherwise, there are NO RIGHTS for anyone if there is no right to own and bear arms. Period.

[pissant]

This is a HUGE case

[Campion]

plus Breyer's astounding hostility towards guns in general ("guns kill!")

Annual deaths in the USA due to all gun-related causes, including suicides and police action: about 30,000.

Annual deaths in the USA due to elective abortion: about 1.5 million.

Guess which one Breyer defends at all cost as a "constitutional right".

[zeugma]

Does anyone know where to find transcripts of oral arguments? If I can find it, I’ll post it here.

[zeugma]

I should have just looked before I posted previously. That was rediculously easy to find.

Oral Arguments: McDonald v. Chicago

It's a PDF, but better than nothing.

[William Tell]

The linked article refers to: "... the back-and-forth over substantive and procedural due process ..."

I like this reference since it helps point out a concern I have had for some time.

The phrase "procedural due process" has a certain redundancy to it for the simple reason that a "procedure" is virtually indistinguishable from a "process". The idea that there could be a "substantive due process" which is not "procedural" is nonsense.

I believe that the nonsense was invented for the sole purpose of eliminating the "privileges and immunities" of U.S. citizens, including the immunity from infringement by the federal government of the right to keep and bear arms.

[Joe Brower]

[caver]

Well put!

[Travis McGee]

bttt

[Petruchio]

I’ll see your bttt, and raise you a bump . . .

[philetus]

Do you think he might be told not to lecture the court on the law?

[hadit2here]

Isn't it about time a conservative who actually HAS some ball and testosterone instead of estrogen step up and actually state the truth?

Your Honor, if this court doesn't know what those words in the Second Amendment mean, might I respectfully suggest that yes, you DO need to be lectured on the law, as it seems that you have no grasp or understanding of it. And I say that with all the due respect your comment deserves.

But we all have to realize that the "oral arguments" are just bread and circuses for the masses and have little or no bearing on the merits, decision or opinions in the case. They're purely for show. Which is why this would be an ideal time/place to point out my point.

[supercat]

BTW, an argument I haven't seen used for invoking RKBA against the states, but one which I would think should be particularly applicable in the Chicago case, would be the equal protection clause. Even if states had the authority to forbid everyone from possessing and/or carrying weapons, any rules declaring that some people are allowed to keep and bear arms but others are not must be subjected to strict scrutiny. The Chicago rule which allows aldermen to keep and bear arms but forbids ordinary citizens from doing so should be viewed as nothing less than a de facto grant of nobility in direct defiance of the Constitution.