Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ninth Circuit Rules 2nd Amendment Incorporated to States
Second Amendment Foundation ^ | April 20, 2009 | NA

Posted on 04/20/2009 3:47:32 PM PDT by neverdem

BELLEVUE, Wash.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Second Amendment Foundation today applauded the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco for ruling that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states and local governments.

The majority opinion was written by Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, with a concurring opinion from Judge Ronald M. Gould, who wrote, “The right to bear arms is a bulwark against external invasion…That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in an attack on any community before more professional forces arrived.”

Although the court found against the plaintiffs in the case of Nordyke v. King – Russell and Sallie Nordyke, operators of a gun show in Alameda County, CA – the court acknowledged that its earlier position that the Second Amendment protected only a collective right of states has been overruled by the Supreme Court’s 2008 historic ruling in District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller. That was the case in which the high court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right to keep and bear arms.

“This is a great victory for advancement of the fundamental individual right of American citizens to own firearms,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “The Ninth Circuit panel has acknowledged that the Heller ruling abrogated its earlier position on the Second Amendment, and it further clarified that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment through the due process clause.”

SAF attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued the Heller case before the Supreme Court in March 2008, filed an amicus brief in the Nordyke case. The Nordykes sued when Alameda County banned gun shows at the county fairgrounds by making it illegal to bring or...

(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; 9thcircuit; banglist; california; heller; ninthcircuit; nordyke; nordykevking; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last
Second Amendment Incorporated!

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf

1 posted on 04/20/2009 3:47:33 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The *NINTH* Circuit? Pinch me...


2 posted on 04/20/2009 3:49:32 PM PDT by Spirochete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spirochete

That’s exactly what I thought!


3 posted on 04/20/2009 3:51:14 PM PDT by joesjane (The strength of the pack is the wolf - Rudyard Kipling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
GO Diarmuid!

What a GREAT man!

I thought it was a pity that he lost his run for congress in the 70’s...

He's doing a fantastic job now!

4 posted on 04/20/2009 3:52:12 PM PDT by Leo Farnsworth (I'm not really Leo Farnsworth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in an attack on any community before more professional forces arrived.”

Yeah...terrorists. That's the ticket. That's why the framers put in that amendment....to guard against...terrorists. Right.

5 posted on 04/20/2009 3:52:56 PM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (I'd rather be hated for who I am than loved for something I ain't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

There has to be a “BUT” to this, this is almost too good to be true!! And from the Ninth Circuit no less!!
Boy is Obama going to be pissed!
Jack


6 posted on 04/20/2009 3:53:08 PM PDT by btcusn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Heller ushered in this ruling. Now we can move forward and test what is or isn’t an infringement...... at least in the states within the 9th circuit. The rest will catch up soon however.


7 posted on 04/20/2009 3:53:50 PM PDT by umgud (I'm really happy I wasn't aborted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I dont like it.Something is up.I know the 2nd A is for the protection of the people from an intrusive gubmint.Whats the deal on these judges?Anybody?


8 posted on 04/20/2009 3:57:38 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life is tough.It's even tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spirochete

Well what ya waiting for. Go get it now. The pot is simmering. None to blame if u don’t act now.


9 posted on 04/20/2009 3:58:06 PM PDT by reefdiver (How do you keep the Conservative a Conservative, in Washington DC ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Awesome! Thanks for posting this!


10 posted on 04/20/2009 3:59:11 PM PDT by Daffynition (Have you noticed Obama voters are having buyer's remorse?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Sorry, I’m suspicious.

Is this a “See! We don’t want to TAKE your guns! Now go register them!” moment??


11 posted on 04/20/2009 4:00:01 PM PDT by FrogMom (No such thing as an honest democrat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
...That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us...

There seems to be a bit of wiggle room in the word "lawfully", but perhaps I'm just paranoid of the 9th Circus.

12 posted on 04/20/2009 4:00:03 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Even though it is terribly date now, every now and again I like to pull out Red Dawn.


13 posted on 04/20/2009 4:01:19 PM PDT by RobRoy (Sorry for typos. I get the cast off Wednesday.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The majority opinion was written by Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, with a concurring opinion from Judge Ronald M. Gould, who wrote, “The right to bear arms is a bulwark against external invasion

First, it is astonishing that the Ninth Circus . . . . . er, Cicuit made this ruling. Second, while I disagree with the foundation of the ruling justice's opinion (that the right to bear arms was a bulwark against external invasion), they still made the right decision. In point of fact, the Second Amendment was written to balance the power of the people against the power of a strong central government. It still remains (IMO) possible that we may exercise our Second Amendment rights in exactly the manner that the Founding Fathers envisioned.

14 posted on 04/20/2009 4:01:29 PM PDT by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The majority opinion was written by Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, with a concurring opinion from Judge Ronald M. Gould, who wrote, “The right to bear arms is a bulwark against external invasion…That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in an attack on any community before more professional forces arrived.”

Pyrrhic victory. This judge is a pinhead. An armed citizenry does help make us more difficult to invade. And a band of terrorists, even a hundred bands of terrorists, isn't a threat to our country. They are a threat to the unlucky people who happen to be in their midst.

No. The Second Amendment was put in place to protect us from our own politicians, thought of as "usurpers" by the Framers who would subvert the Constitution they had agreed upon. Hamilton got it right:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. -- Federalist No. 28
But why should a Federal judge cars about the Federalist Papers? That would be way too restrictive on his power.

ML/NJ

15 posted on 04/20/2009 4:02:05 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spirochete
The *NINTH* Circuit?

I know...I read that and scrolled back up to make sure this wasn't Scrappleface.
16 posted on 04/20/2009 4:02:16 PM PDT by LostInBayport (When more than 98% of the Republicans on Capitol Hill vote against a bill, it is not bipartisan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Carry_Okie

While I see some ground for celebration here, I am curious to know how badly the ruling against the gun show will hurt us.

The Ninth Circuit Court simply does not give ‘the right’ gifts, without taking twice as much away.

I am also curious to know how the 14th Amendment ‘aware’ Freepers view the inclusion of comments referring to that Amendment in the case for the majority on this decision.


17 posted on 04/20/2009 4:02:49 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Pres__ent Obama's own grandmother says he was born in Kenya. She was there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spirochete

Really - the 9th circuit? OMG - I have lived long enough to die!


18 posted on 04/20/2009 4:03:51 PM PDT by majormaturity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

>>There seems to be a bit of wiggle room in the word “lawfully”, but perhaps I’m just paranoid of the 9th Circus.<<

There are a lot of reasons for the word “lawfully”. For one thing, removing that specific would imply that even those that are “unlawfully” armed are included in the spirit of the comment. It is the way lawyers talk: try to be specific.


19 posted on 04/20/2009 4:04:06 PM PDT by RobRoy (Sorry for typos. I get the cast off Wednesday.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998; zeugma
Be careful what you wish for!

Supervisor Mary King didn't want this result, IMHO.

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/

There's nothing from Alan Gura so far.

freedomwarrior998, thanks for the original thread & pdf link!

20 posted on 04/20/2009 4:05:05 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson