smoking357
Banned
imported post
You will not find a more anti-gun argument from Sarah Brady, Chuck Shumer or Dianne Feinstein.
This Republican is as bad as it gets.
http://www.brianpsweeney.com/Scottmotion.pdf
Some of my favorite quotes:
"Plaintiff cannot state any claim against a municipality under the Second Amendment"
"A. Plaintiff cannot state a Second Amendment claim against a municipality.
Plaintiff cannot state a claim under the Second Amendment against any Defendants.
Plaintiff purports to state a claim under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Amd.
Compl., Dkt. No. 20, ¶ 23. However, such a claim is not a claim upon which relief can be
granted as the Second Amendment is not applicable to states or municipalities. See N.R.A. of
America, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 11721, *3-6 (7th Cir. June 2, 2009); see
also Quilici v. Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 269-70 (7th Cir. 1982).
The Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment protection of the right to bear
arms applies only to the federal government. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542
(1876); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886); Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894). The
Supreme Court in Presser held:
[T]he Second Amendment declares that [the right to keep and bear arms] shall not
be infringed, but this…means no more than that it shall not be infringed by
Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict
the powers of the National government….
Presser, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886). While the Presser decision is an older opinion, the Seventh
Circuit has affirmed the relevance of its holding, noting it “is the law of the land and [courts] are
bound by it.” Quilici, 695 F.2d at 270.
The Seventh Circuit has recently revisited the Second Amendment’s applicability to
municipalities. N.R.A. of America, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 11721 at *3-6. Following the
Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2793 (2008), several
plaintiffs, including the National Rifle Association, filed suit against the City of Chicago and
Village of Oak Park. N.R.A. of America, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 11721 at *3. Plaintiffs claimed
that the defendant cities’ outright bans on the ownership of most handguns violated the Second
Case 1:08-cv-01602-LJM-TAB Document 23 Filed 06/26/2009 Page 4 of 20
5
Amendment. Id. In dismissing the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims, the District Court
noted that the Supreme Court had denied previous attempts to apply the Second Amendment to
municipalities and therefore “only the Supreme Court may change course.” Id.
In affirming the District Court, the Seventh Circuit again declined to apply the Second
Amendment’s protection to municipalities, citing the Supreme Court’s decisions and its own
decision in Quilici. Id. at * 4-5. The Seventh Circuit held that the Supreme Court has still not
reversed its decisions in Cruikshank, Presser and Miller regarding the Second Amendment’s
inapplicability to the states, because incorporation was not “a question not presented” in Heller.
Id. at *6 (citing Heller, 128 S.Ct. at 2813, n.23). As a result, the Second Amendment’s
application to states or municipalities “is [only] open to reexamination by the Justices themselves
when the time comes.” N.R.A. of America, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 11721 at *6.
Based upon the facts as stated in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has purported to state
a claim under the Second Amendment not against the federal government, but against a
municipality. Amd. Compl., ¶¶ 6-8, 23. Just as in N.R.A. of America and Quilici, Defendants
cannot be liable for violation of the Second Amendment as it does not apply to municipalities.
N.R.A. of America, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 11721 at *3-6; Quilici, 695 F.2d at 269-70. Plaintiff
cannot state a claim upon which relief can be granted and all Defendants are entitled to
dismissal."
You will not find a more anti-gun argument from Sarah Brady, Chuck Shumer or Dianne Feinstein.
This Republican is as bad as it gets.
http://www.brianpsweeney.com/Scottmotion.pdf
Some of my favorite quotes:
"Plaintiff cannot state any claim against a municipality under the Second Amendment"
"A. Plaintiff cannot state a Second Amendment claim against a municipality.
Plaintiff cannot state a claim under the Second Amendment against any Defendants.
Plaintiff purports to state a claim under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Amd.
Compl., Dkt. No. 20, ¶ 23. However, such a claim is not a claim upon which relief can be
granted as the Second Amendment is not applicable to states or municipalities. See N.R.A. of
America, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 11721, *3-6 (7th Cir. June 2, 2009); see
also Quilici v. Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 269-70 (7th Cir. 1982).
The Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment protection of the right to bear
arms applies only to the federal government. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542
(1876); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886); Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894). The
Supreme Court in Presser held:
[T]he Second Amendment declares that [the right to keep and bear arms] shall not
be infringed, but this…means no more than that it shall not be infringed by
Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict
the powers of the National government….
Presser, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886). While the Presser decision is an older opinion, the Seventh
Circuit has affirmed the relevance of its holding, noting it “is the law of the land and [courts] are
bound by it.” Quilici, 695 F.2d at 270.
The Seventh Circuit has recently revisited the Second Amendment’s applicability to
municipalities. N.R.A. of America, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 11721 at *3-6. Following the
Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2793 (2008), several
plaintiffs, including the National Rifle Association, filed suit against the City of Chicago and
Village of Oak Park. N.R.A. of America, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 11721 at *3. Plaintiffs claimed
that the defendant cities’ outright bans on the ownership of most handguns violated the Second
Case 1:08-cv-01602-LJM-TAB Document 23 Filed 06/26/2009 Page 4 of 20
5
Amendment. Id. In dismissing the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims, the District Court
noted that the Supreme Court had denied previous attempts to apply the Second Amendment to
municipalities and therefore “only the Supreme Court may change course.” Id.
In affirming the District Court, the Seventh Circuit again declined to apply the Second
Amendment’s protection to municipalities, citing the Supreme Court’s decisions and its own
decision in Quilici. Id. at * 4-5. The Seventh Circuit held that the Supreme Court has still not
reversed its decisions in Cruikshank, Presser and Miller regarding the Second Amendment’s
inapplicability to the states, because incorporation was not “a question not presented” in Heller.
Id. at *6 (citing Heller, 128 S.Ct. at 2813, n.23). As a result, the Second Amendment’s
application to states or municipalities “is [only] open to reexamination by the Justices themselves
when the time comes.” N.R.A. of America, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 11721 at *6.
Based upon the facts as stated in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has purported to state
a claim under the Second Amendment not against the federal government, but against a
municipality. Amd. Compl., ¶¶ 6-8, 23. Just as in N.R.A. of America and Quilici, Defendants
cannot be liable for violation of the Second Amendment as it does not apply to municipalities.
N.R.A. of America, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 11721 at *3-6; Quilici, 695 F.2d at 269-70. Plaintiff
cannot state a claim upon which relief can be granted and all Defendants are entitled to
dismissal."