Chicago Gun Case: The City's Brief, issues presented

This brief from the city is concerning all three major Chicago-area cases, two filed against the City of Chicago, one against the village of Oak Park; two of the cases are filed by the NRA, the third by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association. 

85 pages.  It's just like the early days of Parker v DC.

There are a couple pages of disclosure forms.  I don't see anything interesting there.. the city is relying on Mayer Brown LLP and Klein, Thorpe, and Jenkins, Ltd.

Issues presented:
1) whether binding Supreme Court precedent precludes plaintiffs' arguments that the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment.

2) Whether the Second Amendment right to weapons in common use should be incorporated by selective incorporation doctrine as a fundamental liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment.

3) Whether plaintiffs' view of the historical evidence of the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment provides an alternative basis for incorporation where the Supreme Court has rejected that approach, and whether, in any event, that evidence establishes a public understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment imposed the Second Amendment on the States.
No surprises there. Let's compare to the plaintiffs' statement of the case:
1. Is the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms incorporated as against the states pursuant to either the Privileges or Immunities or Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?

2. Do Chicago ordinances banning handguns, requiring annual re-registration of guns, mandating that guns be registered prior to their possession within city limits, and permanently prohibiting the ownership of any particular gun whose registration lapses, violate Plaintiffs? rights to arms and to equal protection?
There are some notable differences there.  Mostly, it looks like the defendant's issues statement is intended to emphasize the Supreme Court precedents which have in the past been used to deny second amendment rights (among others).  They are trying to stick to precedent without going into detail about what the restrictions are, because it's plainly obvious that the restrictions in place (as clearly stated in plaintiffs' brief) violate Heller... except for the messy bit about incorporation.

More to follow before long, though I'm not sure when I'll have time.

This entry was published Sat Apr 18 00:49:03 CDT 2009 by TriggerFinger and last updated 2009-04-18 00:49:03.0. [Tweet]

comments powered by Disqus

Subscribe to Atom Feed

I am not a lawyer, and nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice.

This site is run on custom blog software and is being actively developed. Please be forgiving of errors.

This website is an Amazon affiliate and will receive financial compensation for products purchased from Amazon through links on this site.