McDonald v Chicago

First my thoughts.

Gura got his ass handed to him by an unlikely source; Justice Scalia. He went in prepared to argue that Chicago’s gun ban should be overturned and the Second Amendment incorporated on the grounds of privileges and immunities which would in essence overturn the slaughterhouse case. Many I am sure expected the conservative wing of the court to be receptive to this argument. However, it appears that the Justices felt a ruling based on P&I would bring about undesirable consequences.  So instead they forced the argument to be based on the 14th Amendment’s Due Process clause. Gura obviously wasn’t very well prepared for this, but all things considered he did fairly well.

As much as I am reluctant to say this, it appears that the NRA saved they day by carving 10 minutes out of Gura’s time. A move that originally led me to speak rather ill of an organization I am a Life Member of. Paul D. Clement who previously argued on the losing side of Heller v DC represented the NRA and came fully prepared to argue the case based on Due Process. The Justices seemed very receptive to this argument.

Next it was Chicago’s turn and to be blunt, Feldman stepped in poo. In the end he ended up trying to convince the Court that Heller was wrongly decided.

While many are saying the outcome is a foregone conclusion and some are even celebrating early I intend to wait until the decision is released.

Now let’s see what others are saying.

The Smallest Minority sums up the case from a Libertarian viewpoint and pretty much covers my thoughts as well.

Politics Guns & Beer has an irreverent take on the proceedings. (Beverage Warning) and points out her favorite quote from the proceedings as:

JUSTICE SCALIA: Is that what you are asserting here, that the States have to allow firearms?
MR. FELDMAN: I — I didn’t think I was.
JUSTICE SCALIA: I didn’t think so, either, so why did your last argument make any sense?

Geek with a 45 highlights this exchange:

"What — in which ways has ordered liberty been badly affected?"
"Justice Sotomayor, States may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is constitutional."



One response to “McDonald v Chicago

  1. Pingback: Is the NRA Not Relevant Anymore? | Ordnancecorner’s Weblog