Second Amendment Rights in the Wild West

Townhall ^ | April 24, 2009 | Meredith Turney

[2ndDivisionVet]

I think I just saw a pig fly by my window...

[FlingWingFlyer]

I think I saw one too!

[Gilbo_3]

avian-swine...???

lots of that goin around lately...

[Squantos]

So when do we (can we ?) file suit against the Brady’s for violating our rights with their propaganda ?

[Erik Latranyi]

You don’t get it.

The 9th decided that as long as a law does not restrict your ability to posess and defend your home with a firearm, it is not unconstitutional.

They ruled, in this case, that public places, like fairgrounds, can be ruled “off-limits” to firearm owners.

Heller opened the door for owning/posessing a narrow definition of firearms in your home ONLY. Liberals will decide that anywhere outside your home is prohibited territory (I’m sure they will be magnanimous and allow you to carry your firearm to the range for practice).

[publiusF27]

That was not the way I read it. The 9th did say that Heller said that the need for self defense was most acute in the home, but they never said the RKBA applied in the home only.

They ruled, in this case, that public places, like fairgrounds, can be ruled “off-limits” to firearm owners.

That's sort of true, but only applied to firearms owners who are actually carrying their guns, not all firearms owners. And that ruling makes sense in sensitive places like a court house.

However, the 9th also pointed out how the statute can now be attacked as being overly broad:

The Nordykes argue that the Ordinance is overbroad because it covers more than such sensitive places. They list the areas covered: “open space venues, such as County-owned parks, recreational areas, historic sites, parking lots of public buildings . . . and the County fairgrounds.” The only one of these that seems odd as a “sensitive place” is parking lots.

Odd indeed.

[Erik Latranyi]

The Nordykes argue that the Ordinance is overbroad because it covers more than such sensitive places.

And the 9th said it is not overbroad because it does not restrict firearms in the home.

Heller was wriiten in such a way, and with such comments, as to define the types of firearms allowed (by later courts) and where such posession may take place (forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings).

Therefore, you are going to have later courts define "ordinary weapons" and define what is a "sensitive place"...which is exactly what the 9th did.

[Condor51]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Glocks, Sigs, S&W, Colt, AK's, SKSs, AR-15s and unlimited ammunition for them.

[publiusF27]

And the 9th said it is not overbroad because it does not restrict firearms in the home.

No, they didn't. Produce a quotation from the opinion that says that the 2A can only apply in the home. They said that Heller said the need for 2A protection was especially acute in the home, but they twice indicated that it was the "efficacy of self defense" that was a 2A issue.

Next, the Court connected the statute’s operation to the conduct the Second Amendment protects: “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.” Id. It was thus the statute’s burdens on effective self-defense that implicated the Second Amendment.

They go on to cite the particulars of the Heller case, which involved firearms in the home, but the fact that Heller made the possession of firearms in the home a 2A protected right does not mean that the right can only exist in the home, and I did not see where the 9th said any such thing.

[Erik Latranyi]

They said that Heller said the need for 2A protection was especially acute in the home, but they twice indicated that it was the "efficacy of self defense" that was a 2A issue.

And what is stopping liberal court to rule that the home will be the only place not considered "sensitive"?

The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.”

But what did DC do? They disallowed Heller's semi-automatic handgun and said they would only allow revolvers to be posessed in the home.

You have to understand how liberals will twist this or complacency on our side will result in a gutted 2A.

[Joe Brower]

[publiusF27]

And what is stopping liberal court to rule that the home will be the only place not considered "sensitive"?

The same thing that is stopping a Constitutional Convention from being called to rescind the 2nd amendment, I suppose. But in your post number 5, you said we have already reached the point where the home is the only protected place, and we have not. You said:

The 9th decided that as long as a law does not restrict your ability to posess and defend your home with a firearm, it is not unconstitutional.

They did not say that. They said that the county could restrict guns in sensitive places, and went on to say that a fairgrounds is such a place, but also questioned whether a parking lot is such a place. Questioning whether a parking lot is a "sensitive place" is a long way from saying that the home is the only place that is not sensitive.

[Erik Latranyi]

Questioning whether a parking lot is a "sensitive place" is a long way from saying that the home is the only place that is not sensitive.

I am not going to argue with someone on my side over semantics.

My point is that you can see where the liberal courts are taking this and while we are not there yet, the stage is being set.

[umgud]

You don’t get it.

The 9th decided that as long as a law does not restrict your ability to posess and defend your home with a firearm, it is not unconstitutional.

They ruled, in this case, that public places, like fairgrounds, can be ruled “off-limits” to firearm owners.

Heller opened the door for owning/posessing a narrow definition of firearms in your home ONLY. Liberals will decide that anywhere outside your home is prohibited territory (I’m sure they will be magnanimous and allow you to carry your firearm to the range for practice).

I think this is a misconception. SCOTUS didn't rule that RKBA only applied to the home. They narrowly ruled on Heller's challenge which specifically was against a law that effectively infringed or banned firearms in the home. Heller didn't challenge his inability to carry outside the home and SCOTUS didn't rule on such.

While Nordyke noted the Heller ruling, it too didn't explicitly limit restrict RKBA outside the home, but rather on public property, and not all public property at that.

[Erik Latranyi]

While Nordyke noted the Heller ruling, it too didn't explicitly limit restrict RKBA outside the home, but rather on public property, and not all public property at that.

But SCOTUS left open everywhere but the home in its ruling, leaving it to other courts to define 'sensitive' areas. The 9th cut the places you can carry greatly without special notice to 'sensitive' areas.

How is a fairground 'sensitive'? If that can be ruled off-limits, so can anywhere.

[umgud]

To that extent, I agree with you. The percieved versus the true legal effect will have the grabbers trying to infringe on percieved beliefs. It will also put us in a position to challenge them.

[publiusF27]

My point is that you can see where the liberal courts are taking this and while we are not there yet, the stage is being set.

On that we can agree, but making the argument that a fundamental civil right ends at your doorstep will be difficult for the other side, if not impossible. It will be interesting if we get a case of government property that is also a home (public housing).

[Erik Latranyi]

It will be interesting if we get a case of government property that is also a home (public housing).

The NRA just won on this point against the San Francisco Public Housin Authority that wanted to ban firearms in public housing.

Of course, it never went to court.

[Still Thinking]

“While the generation of 1789 envisioned the right [to keep and bear arms] as a component of local resistance to centralized tyranny, whether British or federal, the generation of 1868 envisioned the right as safeguard to protect individuals from oppressive or indifferent local governments. But though the source of the threat may have migrated, the antidote remained the same: the individual right to keep and bear arms, a recourse for ‘when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.’”

The Ninth Circus said that?? I was impressed enough that they recognized individuals right to armed self defense, but this is truly jaw dropping. Has somebody been slipping something into their water?

[budwiesest]

the individual right to keep and bear arms, a recourse for ‘when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.’”

Yup, they pass laws that do not curtail crime but make guns and ammo more difficult to possess. These 'sanctions' to 'restrain' violence have no effect on violence and in fact, place innocents in greater jeopardy.

When oh when, will our 'betters' ever concede that the individual's right to defend his or herself is the single greatest deterrent to 'violence' and 'oppression'? This moment of clarity can't come too soon.