Illinois Nazis. I hate Illinois Nazis

Warning - Some language in the Blues Brothers clip.

I got a $100 red light camera ticket from Chicago in the mail today. One problem. I haven't driven in Illinois, let alone Chicago, in at least 12 years. I also have never driven my current wheels there. The vehicle's license plate was off by one letter (Which I can tell even on the red light camera picture sent to me). It was a different vehicle from Michigan. I won't post pictures but you can bet your arse that I'll be sending a nice file to Sh-tcago (gave up swearing for Lent) to contest this piece of trash. They got the wrong car.

I'm even more insulted that they sent a picture of a foreign car to me and claim that it was my car. Anyone that knows me knows I drive Fords, not Scion. My family would disown me otherwise The picture of the vehicle was a Scion XD. I drive a older truck based Ford Explorer. There is a big difference. M and N are different letters. Fords and Scions are different vehicles. One quick license plate cross check should have handled that.


I wouldn't expect anything less than incompetence or a moneygrab attempt from the city that gave us Al Capone, Barack Obama, the Daley family, Dan Rostenkowski, Sam Giancana, Fred Roti (A Mobster who was a city alderman which lead the push for the gun ban), Pat Marcy, Jesse Jackson, Mel Reynolds, Rod Blagojevich, Rahm Emanuel, Daniel Walker, and Otto Kerner. Many of them are or have been jailbirds at some point. It's called C(r)ook County, Illinois(e) for a reason. Half of the pols there seem to end up in the big house.

 That's what democrat run cities get you.

McDonald v Chicago in

I have mixed views about the Chicago gun case. To put it best, I concur with the judgement. I am not a believer in "substantive due process", only procedural due process. I believe that the Bill of Rights was intended to apply to the states through the 14th Amendment's Privileges and Immunities provisions. I would have loved to have seen Slaughterhouse, Cruikshank, and Presser eliminated completely. SCOTUS did not address those cases which was a shame. I tend to agree much more with Justice Thomas's partly concurring and concurring in the judgment opinion. I do have strong biases against the Doe, Roe, and Casey cases however.

SCOTUS followed the current "selective incorporation" process, much the same way as the 1st amendment was passed on to the states.

I don't believe in the perfect being the enemy of the good, and overall this was good. I think it could be better, but this is a big improvement over crooks and cops being the only ones to have the guns. When only the police have guns, the result is a police state.

Regardless of that, one scary determination is that we are one judge away from losing this. Obama's Sotomayor is who we thought she was and took her Cruikshank support to SCOTUS. Ginsburg's civil liberty support ends at those she doesn't like. Stevens and Breyer are well known in their views and are no surprise. It is absolutely critical that a firewall is built to stop Obama from replacing one of the five.

This isn't over, not by a longshot.

Latest on McDonald case (NRA vs Gura)

I found this interesting. Orin Kerr of the Volokh blog, posted this. He's not a fan of Alan Gura's argument on the privileges and immunities clause regarding the 2nd Amendment, so keep that in mind.

The Blog of Legal Times notes that the Supreme Court granted the NRA’s contested motion for oral argument time in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The NRA had asked for argument time to make sure the Due Process arguments were fully made, in light of the fact that McDonald’s counsel Alan Gura had focused so heavily on the Privileges or Immunities argument. Gura had opposed the motion on the ground that it was his case and it would be extremely unusual to grant divided time in such circumstances. Paul Clement, former SG, will argue for the NRA.

We can’t read too much into the Court’s decision to divide argument time, but I tend to see it as somewhat supporting my theory that the grant in McDonald on both PorI and Due Process was not a sign the Court wants to overturn the Slaughterhouse cases. As I have written before, the Petitioner’s brief in McDonald is extremely unusual: It’s asking for a revolution in constitutional law, with the stakes of that particular case almost an afterthought to the brief. If the Court was on board the revolution, as most libertarian bloggers seem to think, presumably the Justices wouldn’t carve away some of the precious 30 minutes needed to make the case for the revolution for the much more humdrum and precedent-based argument featured in the NRA brief. On the other hand, if the Justices just want to decide the case before them, and see a revolution as unlikely, then it makes sense to make sure Paul Clement is there to focus on the narrower and more direct arguments for incorporation.

The Legal Times  has the original story. Chicago Gun Case.com has all the filed briefs.

I recently posted updates on the Chicago Case on January 8th and December 9th. Those should be read as background, along with the briefs. I addressed the Slaughterhouse case in the December 9th writing.

There's a little more this. Alan Gura is obviously a major supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but he is not a big fan of the NRA. He took offense at the NRA's charge that he wouldn't argue due process effectively. That's not the first battle he's had with the NRA, which is why I think he took the shot at Clement's (now the NRA attorney) argument in Dc v Heller.

Back in the DC v Heller case, the NRA was afraid they would lose and there were major arguments about that case. Gura did win, and apparently after the case went to SCOTUS, some things were patched up. Did old wounds open up here with the NRA taking 10 minutes of Gura's time?

From Legal Times:

On the pro-gun-rights side those worries, along with long-simmering rivalries, have relegated the National Rifle Association to the sidelines in a case that could fulfill its most fervent dream: a declaration by the Court that the convoluted wording of the Second Amendment ensures an individual's right to bear arms, rather than a collective right of state militias. If the right-leaning Roberts Court embraces that view, regulating firearm possession and use would become harder, though not impossible.
Alan Gura, the Alexandria, Va., lawyer who masterminded the challenge to the D.C. handgun ban, says the NRA has joined him "ever so grudgingly" only in recent weeks, after years of trying to wreck the litigation and avoid a Second Amendment showdown. At earlier stages, the NRA sought to consolidate its own case, which challenged the D.C. law on a "kitchen sink" array of rationales, with Gura's. In a 2003 filing, Gura called the NRA case "sham litigation" aimed at muddying his Second Amendment claim.
Even after the D.C. Circuit ruled in March, says Gura, the NRA lobbied for legislation to repeal the D.C. handgun ban as a way to keep the case out of the Supreme Court. "The NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case, but we went ahead anyway," says Gura, a name partner in the firm of Gura & Possessky. "It's not their case, and they are somewhat territorial."
FRIENDLY FIRE
Gura insists that if the high court grants review, he will argue the case himself and won't defer to NRA lawyers, such as Stephen Halbrook, who have Supreme Court experience. "My decisions in the case have been the correct decisions. That's why I am arguing and he's not."
NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam denies his group sought to sabotage Gura's case: "Our intent to file an amicus brief if the case progresses speaks for itself." He also noted that the NRA filed a brief supporting Gura with the circuit court.
Yet Charles Cooper of D.C.'s Cooper & Kirk acknowledges that when he reviewed the Heller case at an earlier stage for the NRA, "my concern was then, as it is now, whether our [individual rights] theory of the Second Amendment would command a majority of the Supreme Court." Even with recent changes in the composition of the Court, says Cooper, "that is still not as clear as I would like it to be, though I am much more calm." Nonetheless, Cooper says, if the high court declines to take up the D.C. case and lets the D.C. Circuit ruling stand, "that's not going to disappoint me."
Cooper's reluctance is based on legal strategy, but others say the NRA has less lofty reasons for not wanting the Supreme Court to decide what the Second Amendment really means. "The NRA would lose its loudest fund-raising drum if this question is answered," says Carl Bogus, a leading scholar who favors the militia rights view of the amendment.

The NRA is cautious, sometimes way to a fault. I think their caution pushed them in DC, and it also in this case pushed them to put all their eggs in the due process basket instead of going for the 120+year old root cause of the problems. Presser, Cruikshank, and Slaughter-house.


I understand what the NRA did, but it's not their case that's being heard. It's McDonald's case, and I don't like seeing the argument get watered down. I hope this doesn't cost us.

Update in McDonald v Chicago (and list of Congress members who support the Chicago gun ban)

I most recently posted the filings and background on December 9th.

If those who are following the 2nd and 14th Amendment case McDonald v. Chicago,  also known as the Chicago Gun Case, click on the December 9th link above for background information and comments on the pro-side filings.

Before and after that, go to ChicagoGunCase.com for the primary sources and filings from all sides. It's a pro-2a website run by the attorneys for McDonald, but all the briefs are there.

Today, the anti-side's briefs are coming in. The NAACP and Brady groups officially aren't on "either" side, although their arguments favor Chicago, obviously with their long time anti 2nd Amendment stances.

The official anti's briefs are arriving today. Go to the Chicago Gun Case site linked above if you want to read them - or the pro-side.  They are.

Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence - an offshoot of  CSGV, originally founded as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. They still support a ban. They oppose incorporation of the 2nd Amendment, and strongly attack the founders reason for the 2nd amendment's safeguard against tyranny (calling it insurrectionist), and misread Federalist 46. Let's get one thing straight. It is a safeguard and DEFENSE against tyranny. Not bad results of elections or bad decisions of politicians. Nobody, not even most of the "militia groups" argue for that. This read more like a political rant against a strawman hypothetical situation than a legal brief, and it is a rather incoherent argument.

ADL - Similar to EFSGV, although much better argument written (even though I 100% disagree with it). At least they gave a public policy argument and use four whackos as an example to back it up. It doesn't have much to do with the case, but they even admit that, and argue what they consider judicial restraint. I don't agree with the brief, but I can respect it as decent work and a valid argument for one's client. Disagreement doesn't mean crap work.

US Conference of Mayors - Generally a simple pro-gun control arguments. I find this headline interesting. "The Second Amendment protects a largely obsolete 18th Century right."

"Public Health Organizations" - Remember why I bashed smoking bans and the people behind them? They don't want to stop with smoking. According to these people, anything they think is harmful needs to be banned or strictly regulated. These people remind me of Dr. Cacto, the villain in the movie Demolition Man (with Sylvester Stallone, Sandra Bullock, Denis Leary, and Wesley Snipes). American Public Health Association is behind this one. They regurgitate the discredited Arthur Kellermann anti-gun case control study out of King County, Washington.

States of Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey through their Attorney Generals - Similar arguments to Chicago briefs.

Cities of Winnetka, Evanston, Skokie, and Illinois Municipal League.

Chicago Board of Education and the Joyce Foundation funded anti-gun groups (VPC, etc)

Cities of Baltimore, Columbus, Cleveland, Oakland, Richmond CA, Sacramento, San Francisco, Portland Oregon, Philadelphia, and Seattle, along with Crook, I mean Cook County Illinois.

Some prosecutors, including Kym Worthy in Wayne County, MI.



53 Congressmen and women support the Chicago Gun ban.

Gary Ackerman - D - New York 5th District (NY-05)
Tim Bishop - D - New York's 1st District (NY-01)
Robert Brady - D - Pennsylvania's 1st District (PA-01)
Lois Capps - D - California's 23rd District (CA-23)
Michael Capuano -  D - Massacusetts 8th District (MA-08)
Yvette Clarke - D - New York 11th District (NY-11)
William Lacy Clay - D - Missouri's 1st District (MO-01)
Gerald Connelly - D - Virginia 11th District (VA-11)
Joseph Crowley - D - New York 7th District (NY-07)
Elijah Cummings - D - Maryland 7th District (MD-07)
Danny Davis - D - Illinois 7th District (IL-07)
Diana DeGette - D - Colorado 1st District (CO-01)
Elliot Engle - D - New York 17th District (NY-17)
Sam Farr - D - California 17th District (CA-17)
Chaka Fattah - D - Pennsylvania 2nd District (PA-02)
Luis Gutierrez - D - Illinois 4th District (IL-04)
Miriam Hirono - D - Hawaii 2nd District (HI-02)
 Michael Honda - D - California 15th District (CA-15)
Steve Israel - D - New York 2nd District (NY-02)
Jesse Jackson Jr - D - Illinois 2nd District (IL-02)
Sheila Jackson Lee - D - Texas 18th District (TX-18)
Henry Johnson - D - Georgia 4th District (GA-04)
Patrick Kennedy - D - Rhode Island 1st District (RI-01)
Carolyn Kilpatrick - D - Michigan 13th District (MI-13)
James Langevin - D - Rhode Island 2nd District (RI-02)
John Larson - D - Connecticut 1st District (CT-01)
John Lewis - D - Georgia 5th District (GA-05)
Nita Lowey - D - New York 18th District (NY-18)
Carolyn McCarthy - D - New York 4th District (NY-04)

James McGovern - D - Massachusetts 3rd District (MA-03)
Carolyn Maloney - D - New York 14th District (NY-14)
Doris Matsui - D - California 5th District (CA-05)
Gregory Meeks - D - New York 6th District (NY-06)
George Miller - D - California 7th District (CA-07)
Gwen Moore - D - Wisconsin 4th District (WI-04)
James Moran - D - Virginia 8th District (VA-08)
Jerrold Nadler - D - New York 8th District (NY-08)
Grace Napolitano - D - California 38th District (CA-38)
Bill Pascrell - D - New Jersey 8th District (NJ-08)
Donald Payne - D - New Jersey 10th District (NJ-10)
David Price - D - North Carolina 4th District (NC-04)

Mike Quigley - D - Illinois 5th District (IL-05)
Charles Rangel - D - New York 15th District (NY-15)
Steve Rothman - D - New Jersey 9th District (NJ-09)
Lucille Roybal Allard - D - California 34th District (CA-34)
Bobby Rush - D - Illinois 1st District (IL-01)
Linda Sanchez - D - California 39th District (CA-39)
Janice Schakowsky - D - Illinois 9th District (IL-09)
Jose Serrano - D - New York 16th District (NY-16)
Louise McIntosh Slaughter - D - New York 28th District (NY-28)
Fortney Pete Stark - D - California 13th District (CA-13)
Edolphus Towns - D - New York 10th District (NY-10)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz - D - Florida 20th District (FL-20)
Anthony Weiner - D - New York 9th District (NY-09)
Lynn Woolsey - D - California 6th District (CA-06)

I noticed all of them were Democrats. Most of them are in safe seats, but in a good years, we can reduce these numbers. Connelly, Israel, Bishop and Price can all be beaten in a very good year. Maybe even McCarthy, but that's really pushing it. Connelly and Bishop are the best bets. 

Chicago gun ban challenged in court! Right in Obama's home town!

No rest for the weary. The gun ban supported by Obama is now being challenged in court on 2nd Amendment. McDonald et al v City of Chicago is probably how the case is going to be filed. Mayor Richard Daley was named individually as well. This was filed in US District Court in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

ChicagoGunCase.com is the website. Everyone reading this should take a look. Like the DC case, public documents will be posted there. DC case is now binding, so it will be interesting to see how it is adapted to a local ordinance in a state with the federalism provisions.

The legal team here is Illinois attorney David Sigale and the DC v Heller attorney Alan Gura. It's certainly a competent team.

The plaintiffs are Otis McDonald, Adam Orlov, Colleen and David Lawson, Second Amendment Foundation, and the Illinois State Rifle Association.

If this case wins, it is bigger than the DC win. This is pushing for "incorporation" of the 2nd Amendment. Incorporation is through the 14th amendment. Many amendments(through case law) are incorporated and now binding on the states. Will the 2nd Amendment join them? It should, but that remains to be seen.

What is challenged?

1. The Handgun ban.

2. Annual re-registration of firearms.

3. Pre-acquisition registration of firearms.

4. Unregisterable status of some firearms.

5. Unregisterable status penalty under equal protection violations.

The Press Release is here

And there is the story from the Extremely anti-rights Chicago Tribune.