the briefs are in from chicago supporters

[bossy22]

the amicus briefs in support of chicago have been filed and are now up online for your viewing pleasure

http://www.chicagoguncase.com/case-filings/#SupremeCourt

[eqfan592]

1. Lot's of good briefs there...

...in favor of the petitioners. It's like one long body slam for Chicago and it's supporters on this issue. Thanks for the link. ;)

[WheelWalker]

2. Super. Thank you very much for the link.

[spin]

3. Thanks. A quick scan shows lots of good argument in these briefs. (n/t)

[gorfle]

4. 31 for, 16 against.

I don't know if the number of petitioners means anything, but there are 31 petitioners for, and 16 against.

[OttavaKarhu]

5. Excellent collection of info, thanks. n/t

[taurus145]

6. Finally got through them all

Good stuff. Thanks for posting it.

[PavePusher]

7. Bwaaaahah-hahah-hahahah!

I just started skimming McCarthy's brief. First page of the body, major factual error. (Pg. 12, Para. 3, sent. 1) If the rest are like that, the Windy City is about to be spanked like a masochist at a bondage party. And deserve it.

:spank:

[Will E Orwontee]

8. Some comtemptable but ridiculous arguments there . . .

I knew each of the briefs in support of Chicago would offer some facepalm moments; the first random one I clicked didn't disappoint.

The Mayors argue that gun bans facilitate their stop and frisk initiatives because suspected gun possession is the primary probable cause for the stop.

"Firearms regulation plays a central role in enhancing police authority to engage in stop-and-frisk tactics. When applicable law bans the possession or carrying of firearms, a stop and frisk conducted by an officer who reasonably suspects that an individual is illegally carrying a firearm—such as a suspicious bulge in a waistband—is considered constitutionally reasonable. . . .

When applicable law generally permits individuals to carry firearms, however, the Fourth Amendment does not permit a stop-and-frisk even when there is reason to believe that a suspect is armed or dangerous because there is
no indication of a violation of law. . . .

Thus, weapons searches were central to the New York stop-and-frisk strategy. New York’s restrictive gun control laws, in turn, facilitated this strategy; without such restrictive laws, the most important legal basis for stop-and-frisk would have disappeared."

So, the argument is, please don't apply the 2nd to the states because if our gun bans are invalidated our citizens will get to enjoy 4th Amendment protections as well!

Triple Facepalm!

[AtheistCrusader]

9. My goodness.

How any true Progressive can support these morons is beyond me. Just like the far right, they will shit on ANY civil right to further their agendas.

[TheWraith]

14. Reading that "logic..."

...makes me want to take the lawyer who wrote it and strangle them with their necktie until they agree to retake their constitutional law classes.

[GreenStormCloud]

10. This case could cause the entire Bill of Rights to be incorporated.

This could cause Slaughter - House to be overturned.

[X_Digger]

11. That would shake up a TON of precedent..

.. and gore a lot of sacred cows on BOTH sides of the aisle.

I'd read an interesting piece at scotusblog about Thomas being open to revisiting slaughterhouse-

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/might-it-happen-slaughterhouse-overruled/

[Will E Orwontee]

12. I think it's more than Thomas . . .

One could posit that with the Court granting cert for McDonald instead of NRA that there are at least four Justices eager to hear argument on overturning Slaughterhouse.

That is after all the difference between them . . . PoI over DP.

[X_Digger]

13. True, the scotusblog article makes that point. n/t