Ammo For Sale

« « Smith and Wesson Tactical Pen Review | Home | On fighting and awareness » »

Chicago Gun Case Update

NRA ILA: U.S. Supreme Court Grants NRA Motion for Divided Argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago

9 Responses to “Chicago Gun Case Update”

  1. Pete Says:

    This certainly rocks the boat a lot. Maybe not enough votes for P&I but there are votes for due process.

  2. DirtCrashr Says:

    I’m not so happy to hear this…

  3. Nate Says:

    What’s the point of this? He stepped and did a fan-fuckin’-tastic job in heller, while the NRA was hiding and trying to hamstring him. Well lets hope they don’t screw the pooch. But if they do, watch for the NRApoligists to come out in force.

  4. straightarrow Says:

    Horeseshit! If the USSC wanted to hear the NRA so badly, they should have granted them their own time, or better yet, granted cert for their case. and not taken time from Gura. I smell enemy action here. Do not be surprised if the NRA presentation introduces one of their famous “compromises” as a solution to the Chicago case, thus giving the Supremes an option that heretofore hasn’t been available for consideration and that basically derails any benefit from the decision even if it goes for MacDonald.

  5. J Richardson Says:

    Paul Clement will be presenting the NRA’s argument? Just shoot me now!

  6. mike Says:

    I think the fact that the Court granted NRA’s motion for divided argument speaks for itself. Gura’s brief was heavy on P or I and light on Due Process.

    As for Clement, he is one of the most respected lawyers in the country and clearly knows his way around the court.

  7. straightarrow Says:

    His abilities may be respected, but I don’t think that respect extends to his ethics.

  8. Chas Says:

    NRA has the right to be as assertive as the process allows, and they have a responsibility to their membership to do so.
    This decision will further empower the NRA with future bragging rights, so it’s bound to infuriate the anti’s, who would much prefer that the NRA just STFU.

  9. mike Says:

    It’s called being an advocate. As Solicitor General, Clement’s client was the U.S. government. His client is now the NRA.

    This is no different than former Solicitor General Ted Olson defending the campaign finance reform legislation (BCRA)in 2002/3 for the government and opposing it as counsel in the recent Citizen’s United case in which the court overturned most restrictions on corporate speech.

    Plenty of defense attorneys started their careers as prosecutors. Is that unethical as well?

    You might actually try reading Clement’s brief on behalf of 300 plus members of congress before making the assumption that NRA is trying to sabotage the case or that Clement is bad on the issue.