Oral Argument on Ezell II

[EdC]

Just started listening...wow....honestly, I don't understand how she made it through law school..

Sometimes a lawyer has to work with what her client gave her to work with. An old saying is "If the law against you, argue the facts. If the facts are against you, argue the law." If you have neither the law or facts are on your side, then the client shouldn't have brought the case. Try telling that to the City of Chicago. We all know that the case is strictly politically driven, and the judges at the 7th Circuit don't like litigants wasting their time.

OP, thx for posting the link. It was a great listen.

 

[JNG]

We always say, "if the law is with you, pound the law. If it isn't, pound the facts. If both are against you, pound the table. "

 

[Woobie]

I guess I don't understand what the big deal is. Why do they need shooting ranges in Chicago? Isn't the whole freakin city a shooting range?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Why do they need shooting ranges in Chicago?

I hear ya, but they need shooting ranges so those that LEGALLY carry guns in Chicago can do the shooting portion of the Illinois statute.

 

[Woobie]

I hear ya, but they need shooting ranges so those that LEGALLY carry guns in Chicago can do the shooting portion of the Illinois statute.

Absolutely. And I love the questioning from the judges to Chicago. If that town hadn't been so arrogant toward its own citizens this long, they wouldnt be dealing with the shooting range in the streets like they are. My purple got a little too dark.

 

[Hornett]

"Like convenience stores and gas stations?"

"Since it IS legal for residents to have handguns, wouldn't it be a good idea to have a range for them to learn the proper use of them?"

Haahahahaha

At times, the Chicago lawyer seems a little defiant as first, but that doesn't last.

 

[historian]

Wooooooohhhhhh
Opinions

 

[historian]

Better link
https://t.co/Yo2fY5nUo5

 

[T.Lex]

Wow.

But that's a great opinion. (Kanne is a Reagan appointee; Sykes is a G.W. Bush appointee. Neither of which means much. I grow more impressed with Sykes every time she authors an opinion.) Rovner (G.H.W. Bush - see, I told you it doesn't mean much), of course, has a dissenting concurrence. She drives me batty.

 

[Libertarian01]

I couldn't get the link for oral arguments to work.

Here is a link that I found from Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPLm86Kmd-g

Regards,

Doug

 

[HoughMade]

Wow.

But that's a great opinion. (Kanne is a Reagan appointee; Sykes is a G.W. Bush appointee. Neither of which means much. I grow more impressed with Sykes every time she authors an opinion.) Rovner (G.H.W. Bush - see, I told you it doesn't mean much), of course, has a dissenting concurrence. She drives me batty.

I've met and had dinner with Kanne. Again, he wouldn't remember.

Anyhoo, great opinion.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Rovner (G.H.W. Bush - see, I told you it doesn't mean much)

That's the proper INGO spirit!

INGO: "That thar George Push ain't do nothing for us no how."

Kirk Freeman: "What about the PLCAA of 2005? Without it you would be shooting rubber bands but nothing else right now."

INGO: "Ron Paul!!!"

 

[T.Lex]

That's the proper INGO spirit!

INGO: "That thar George Push ain't do nothing for us no how."

Kirk Freeman: "What about the PLCAA of 2005? Without it you would be shooting rubber bands but nothing else right now."

INGO: "Ron Paul!!!"

One of us needs more Zombie Dust. I can't figure out which. Maybe both.

I have no clue how your observation fits with my post. Even the short part you quoted.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

One of us needs more Zombie Dust. I can't figure out which. Maybe both.

I have no clue how your observation fits with my post. Even the short part you quoted.

The overbreadth of the "Bush didn't do nothing fer us" line of attack drives me up the wall.

 

[T.Lex]

The overbreadth of the "Bush didn't do nothing fer us" line of attack drives me up the wall.

Yeah, but which Bush? I mean, my reference was simply an observation that nominating presidents' parties don't really make much difference when it comes to appointing judges.

And my quote in your post was about Rovner, who rarely has an opinion I would agree with, was appointed by Bush 41. Your reference was to Bush 43. Or are you saying Sykes' appointment by Bush 43.

(And you do know I'm not one who says that, right.)

I'm overanalyzing, aren't I.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

My mistake, I confused Bush 1.0 for Bush 2.0.

 

[T.Lex]

My mistake, I confused Bush 1.0 for Bush 2.0.

It wasn't really an upgrade. More a UI update.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If Chicago won't learn, Alan Gura will teach them: If Chicago Won?t Learn, Alan Gura Will Make It

 

[actaeon277]

If Chicago won't learn, Alan Gura will teach them: If Chicago Won?t Learn, Alan Gura Will Make It

I disagree with this line
But it was totally earthshaking in that it reestablished the Second Amendment right to keep and bear guns, not just collectively but also and especially for self-defense.

I think it has only been recently that people think it is not an individual right.
And that the Supreme Court has never ruled that way.


Though I could be wrong.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I disagree with this line
But it was totally earthshaking in that it reestablished the Second Amendment right to keep and bear guns, not just collectively but also and especially for self-defense.

I think it has only been recently that people think it is not an individual right.
And that the Supreme Court has never ruled that way.


Though I could be wrong.

Act, think of it this way, the Miller test was "did the weapon have a use in the military"?

Heller expanded this test to self-defense.