Posted on 04/21/2009 9:41:58 AM PDT by neverdem
(04-20) 19:10 PDT San Francisco -- A federal appeals court ruled Monday that private citizens can challenge state and local gun laws by invoking the constitutional right to bear arms - the first such ruling in the nation - but upheld a ban on firearms at gun shows at the Alameda County Fairgrounds in Pleasanton.
The ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco followed last year's landmark Supreme Court decision that the Constitution's Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns for self-defense.
The high court struck down a handgun prohibition in Washington, D.C., a federal enclave, and did not say whether the Second Amendment also applied to state and local laws. Nor did the court spell out the extent of the government's authority to regulate firearms, although it said guns could be excluded from "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
National Rifle Association lawsuits in the aftermath of the ruling prompted some local governments and agencies to abandon restrictive gun laws, including a ban on possession of guns and ammunition in public housing that the San Francisco Housing Authority dropped in January. But no court had ruled on the scope of the Second Amendment until Monday.
The case was a challenge by gun show promoters to a 1999 ordinance that banned firearms on all Alameda County property, including the fairgrounds, where 16 people had been injured in a melee that included gunfire the previous year. The court could have decided the case with its conclusion that the ban was a reasonable safety measure, without...
--snip--
The county's lawyer was unavailable for comment. Sam Hoover, an attorney with Legal Community Against Violence, which supports gun regulation, said the court had needlessly opened the door to challenges of other state and local laws...
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Like S&W released the Heller Commemorative Edition, I hope they and other manufacturers put out some commemorative editions as well, because I feel this could be a huge landslide going out way.
Check the last paragraph in the excerpt. I wanted to read about the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the drive by media.
Woah, there is some serious need for ejumacation in this Country.
Hmm. Won't be much a a show will it? What next? Ban cars at car shows? Ban baseballs at baseball games?
NOTE: The 2nd Amendment is SELF-incorporated to all government entities at every level. It is MORE ABSOLUTE than the 1st Amendment, or any of the others, because the wording forbids not only CONGRESS, but ANYONE from infringing on it. The 1st says “Congress shall make no law...”. The 2nd say “shall NOT be infringed!” Period! End of debate!
No, they will ban baseball BATS at ball games! LOL.
But not moonbats, unfortunately. They’re welcome anywhere, apparently.
That’s what it says, but private establishments can tell you you cannot come into them armed, or if they are your employer, they can tell you you cannot be armed while on their property.
The Santa Clara County Fairgrounds is not a private establishment. This ruling is flawed, but it does have the benefit of making it impossible for the anti-gunners to appeal the incorporation ruling.
I used to think that, bu: is that not an infringment? “SHALL NOT be infringed” means nowhere, no way, no how.
That's a very good point. I am delighted to see incorporation, even though I think that the clear language of the Second Amendment means what it says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
I personally see that as a proscription on all gun laws, whether federal or state (although I am aware that there are other people who only see that as forbidding the federal government from infringing on the RKBA.)
“I used to think that, bu: is that not an infringment? “SHALL NOT be infringed” means nowhere, no way, no how.”
Perhaps the “right to keep and bear arms” (which right “SHALL NOT be infringed”) does not include keeping and bearing arms on the property of someone else who has not given permission to do so. If so, prohibiting keeping and bearing arms on private property is not an infringement of the right.
I have not seen the scope of the “right to keep and bear arms” adequately defined.
No. If you don’t want someone to carry a gun in your home, you have the right to tell them you don’t want them there armed. Same with your business. If not, you have no control over your own property or what you consider your own personal safety.
When you have two people and the right of each person potentially violates the others’ right, it has to be determined as to how they need to function, if one or both rights really aren’t violating the others’ right, and whose rights precede the others’ and under what circumstances. Generally this is where the courts have an important role, if it already has not been spelled out in laws and statutes.
So yes you are correct that it technically can be viewed as an infringement as if the person decides to go into that store, or work for that company, in the purest technical sense. The person however, must agree to disarm and thereby accepts the conditions to enter the store, or work for that company, so even though it might be an infringement, it is one that the person accepts and under those conditions, since in these cases where the person does not have to go into that particular store, or is forced to work for that particular employer, they could be viewed as voluntarily giving up their right to be armed in those places. They have no compelling reason to have to use a certain store or work for a certain company.
Generally the courts side with people being able to control what goes on on their property (home, business). Generally that right trumps anothers’ right to exercise what they want to do. To illustrate it further, forget guns for a moment. What if someone came onto your private property, and started to protest you and was speaking all day about your supposed problems? Does their right to free speech trump your property rights?
“I have not seen the scope of the “right to keep and bear arms” adequately defined.”
It is purposely generic because they were not attempting to specify exactly all specific things they considered “arms”, as they understood that weapons would change over time. The principle of self defense and being able to defend oneself with whatever instrument constituted “arms” is what was being protected. Hell, a hammer becomes “arms” if used in self defense. A pitchfork becomes “arms” if you have to defend yourself with it. Chain saw. Pipe wrench. Sword. Musket. Glock. Lamp. Rock. The principle remains the same.
“Bear” means to carry. While states cannot stop you from doing so (unless you’re a felon and served jail > 1 yr), they can set lawful regulations as to HOW people are to carry. Open or concealed. In the past generally everyone carried openly, whatever the “arms” were. Thieves generally carried concealed weapons. Hence things like forearm handshakes (to check for hidden daggers).
the final sentence where the lawyer says “needlessly opened” reflects the current thinking in municipal legislation.
ALL is legal until challenged.
Thus municipal officials pass laws they KNOW WILL NOT STANT LEGAL CHALLENGE because they can get away with it until someone with money and lawyers can challenge it.
This is what this lawyer is really saying in another era, “don’t teach the slaves about reading.”
If you don’t want someone to carry a gun in your home, you have the right to tell them you don’t want them there armed.
How about we ban lawmakers from passing laws
“GUESTS” is the operative word.
Amen Judge, you "get it" regarding the authors' intent for the 2nd Amendment, too bad that most of your colleagues on the bench don't.
If Judge Gould had been on the SCOTUS instead of Kennedy the four originalists would probably not have been forced to water down the majority opinion in order to get Kennedy's vote to uphold Heller. I believe we would have gotten much more extensive protection for our 2nd Amendment rights if Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito had been able to get one more vote for a decision that would have more fully confirmed the original intent of the authors. But in order to get even as much as they did the originalists had to compromise with Kennedy, and that compromise left some holes big enough for gun grabbing politicians like Obama and the D.C. officials to drive a truck through. In fact, although Mr. Heller was able to get the gun that was the catalyst that brought his case to the district court to begin with, the D.C. Rats have already come up with a slate of new regulations carefully designed to slip through those holes, and those regulations are still keeping most law abiding D.C. residents from legally acquiring and keeping handguns.
What we got in Heller was a big step in the right direction but it allows government to regulate gun possession in ways the authors never intended, such as licensing gun owners, registering guns, banning certain types of guns, and requiring government's permission to carry a gun anywhere except on personally owned property. Heller was and is a very important and very welcome decision, but the sad fact is that there are still 22,000 restrictive gun laws on the books all across the US and practically every one of them is a violation of the 2nd Amendment as the authors intended it to be read. Our right to own a gun is hanging by a slender thread comprised of the lives of 5 men. If any one of the SCOTUS members who upheld Heller dies or is forced to retire by ill health while Obama is in office Heller will be one of the first, if not the very first, decision that will be reversed by a reconstructed SCOTUS. Scalia is 72, Kennedy is 70, Thomas is 59, and Obama may be in office for another 7-2/3 years, so don't get too comfortable with Heller as a reason to believe that a freedom-hating liberal government will abide by the 2nd Amendment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.