In case no one was watching...
One of the byproducts of Heller was the filing of a challenge to Chicago's gun ban laws. Rather than taking years to bring up the matter of incorporation, two cases are now looking at the question.
The first is the Nordyke, et al v. King, et al case, for which you can find detail information on this thread.
Here is the latest on the Chicago Case
10/21/2008
Gura's MOTION TO NARROW LEGAL ISSUES (Incorporation)
7/31/2008
MOTION TO STRIKE CITY OF CHICAGO’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
Gura's MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
7/16/2008
CITY OF CHICAGO’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT, DEFENSE, AND JURY DEMAND
6/26/2008
COMPLAINT against City of Chicago
Gura's Motion to Narrow Legal Issues asks the court to decide the incorporation question in favor of the people against Chicago. It says that the 14th amendment was designed to overturn (by legislation) Barron v. Baltimore, and to correct state abridgements of the rights of freed blacks, including the right to arms, in the post-civil war era.
The argument is bolstered by showing a majority of legal scholars believe The Slaughter-House Cases were wrongly decided and even shows the late Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas were open to reviewing the decision. He also argues that by the modern incorporation doctrine, the 2A rights should easily pass the incorporation tests.
The motion also covers how the courts have used the 14th Amendment to protect unenumerated rights by citing a right-to-die case and a Planned Parenthood abortion case. He juxtiposes the protection of these unlisted rights with the trampling of an enumerated right explicit in the constution.
He also shreds Chicago's reliance on Cruikshank , Presser and Miller v. Texas (1894) which are pre-incorporation doctrine cases. This undercuts the majority of the city's arguments and makes a persuasive case for incorporating the 2A against the states.
One of the byproducts of Heller was the filing of a challenge to Chicago's gun ban laws. Rather than taking years to bring up the matter of incorporation, two cases are now looking at the question.
The first is the Nordyke, et al v. King, et al case, for which you can find detail information on this thread.
Here is the latest on the Chicago Case
McDONALD, et al v. City of Chicago (08-CV-3645)
10/21/2008
Gura's MOTION TO NARROW LEGAL ISSUES (Incorporation)
7/31/2008
MOTION TO STRIKE CITY OF CHICAGO’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
Gura's MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
7/16/2008
CITY OF CHICAGO’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT, DEFENSE, AND JURY DEMAND
6/26/2008
COMPLAINT against City of Chicago
Gura's Motion to Narrow Legal Issues asks the court to decide the incorporation question in favor of the people against Chicago. It says that the 14th amendment was designed to overturn (by legislation) Barron v. Baltimore, and to correct state abridgements of the rights of freed blacks, including the right to arms, in the post-civil war era.
The argument is bolstered by showing a majority of legal scholars believe The Slaughter-House Cases were wrongly decided and even shows the late Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas were open to reviewing the decision. He also argues that by the modern incorporation doctrine, the 2A rights should easily pass the incorporation tests.
The motion also covers how the courts have used the 14th Amendment to protect unenumerated rights by citing a right-to-die case and a Planned Parenthood abortion case. He juxtiposes the protection of these unlisted rights with the trampling of an enumerated right explicit in the constution.
He also shreds Chicago's reliance on Cruikshank , Presser and Miller v. Texas (1894) which are pre-incorporation doctrine cases. This undercuts the majority of the city's arguments and makes a persuasive case for incorporating the 2A against the states.