Credit
Questioning NRA’s claims in the McDonald case. I’m a fan of NRA but their push to claim credit in the two big supreme court gun cases is pretty weak.
Update: More here. Seems they are a party to the case but the cases are not consolidated.
7 Responses to “Credit”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
June 10th, 2010 at 8:41 am
Don’t fall under the sway of David’s anti-NRA rhetoric. He’s letting his hatred get in the way of those pesky things called “facts.” If you don’t think McDonald, as presented to the 7th Circuit and SCOTUS, was a combination of three lawsuits, maybe you ought to read what Alan Gura had to say about it.
June 10th, 2010 at 9:13 am
Their push to claim of a right to continued legitimate existence after endorsing McCain is pretty weak.
June 10th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Comment given to me by my source for the original post: “Despite being consolidated at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, the cases are different in scope in terms of the specific regulations challenged and the legal argument for applying the Second Amendment against state and local governments. The cases were appealed separately to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Boyd–I’m an NRA Life Member–have been for about two decades now. I’ve been a members council officer, a Golden Eagle, a Civil Rights Defense Fund contributor….for years. I’ll put the money and time and effort I’ve put in to the organization over the course of my lifetime up for comparison to your efforts any time you’d like to come out from behind your screen name.
For you to equate disagreement with *some* management policies, actions and endorsement with “hatred for the NRA” is fundamentally dishonest. That’s like saying someone who criticizes Obama is anti-American.
I won’t presume to use up any more space on this blog arguing with you about your presumptions–go ahead and pipe up at my post you’d like to continue this dance over at my place.
June 10th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
MR. CODREA is correct, and one can get the complete details from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago
The cases were “consolidated” at the 7th Circuit during that phase, but Second Amendment Foundation & Gura filed a separate appeal on its case, as did the NRA.
The NRA’s appeal of its case to SCOTUS, NRA v. City of Chicago and Village of Oak Park, is essentially still pending.
Boyd, your reference to what Mr. Gura says is an “incomplete accuracy.” That is, the cases were at one time consolidated, but they are now being handled individually by SCOTUS. To presume that they are both being considered as one is not correct.
When Gura commented on the appeals phase it as way back more than a year ago.
June 10th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
If you read the Petitioners Brief in McDonald, authored by Mr. Gura, in the section “PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS”
The three cases were related, but not consolidated, in the District Court. Petitioners and the related case plantiffs appealed the District Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which consolidated the appeals.
I think that should pretty much settles it. If the language is acceptable to go in front of the Supreme Court, I think the language is acceptable for Chris Cox to use.
June 10th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
I think, but am not 100% certain, that saying the case was consolidated may be incorrect. It was the appeal that was consolidated. But I think it’s asking a lot for Chris Cox, who is not a lawyer, to get the finer point of that. Even if Chris didn’t write the article himself (likely) it was likely not written by someone with legal training.
June 10th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
NRA has been important in both cases but they appear try to tag along at the end.