Posted on 04/25/2009 10:49:15 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
It may seem utterly impossible, but a fairly decent ruling regarding the Second Amendment came from a California court this week. The San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals actually ruled that private citizens can challenge state and local gun laws under the Second Amendment.
Jokingly referred to as the Ninth “Circus” Court of Appeals for its historically horrendous opinions (it’s one of the most overturned appeals court in the nation), it is stunning to read the majority opinions in the case, Nordyke v. King. The majority opinions read more like a historical chronology of gun rights produced by the National Rifle Association than a decision from a decidedly liberal court.
Tracing the fundamental right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms, from William Blackstone through current law, the court found:
“…the right to keep and bear arms is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’ Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the ‘true palladium of liberty.’ Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited.”
The Ninth Circuit ruling relied heavily on District of Columbia v. Heller, once again affirming the victory for Second Amendment rights in last year’s landmark Supreme Court ruling.
The Nordyke case was a lawsuit filed by gun show promoters challenging the constitutionality of an Alameda County ordinance prohibiting gun shows on county property, including the local fairgrounds. The overall ruling of the court was not a victory for the gun show operators. The court found that “the Ordinance before us…does not directly impede the efficacy of self-defense or limit self-defense in the home. Rather, it regulates gun possession in public places that are County property.”
Under the historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court allowed that laws may proscribe gun possession in “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings and laws may regulate “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” The Ninth Circuit interpreted this “sensitive places” exception to apply to local government venues where crowds congregate. One could argue that this exception and its interpretation grant too much power to local governments in controlling gun sales, but the fact that the rest of the opinion affirms individuals’ rights to bear arms is significant for gun-control crazy California.
In a state where the judiciary regularly oversteps its constitutional boundaries to advance “progressive” political agendas, it’s remarkable the judiciary acknowledges the necessity of firearms to protect the populace not just from outside threats, but from a tyrannical government:
“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.’”
State lawmakers are now in discord with their judicial counterparts. The same day the Ninth Circuit ruling was handed down, State Assemblyman Kevin DeLeon (D-Los Angeles) was touting his bill that will place severe restrictions on ammunition purchases in California. Stores selling ammunition will, among other mandates, be required to receive a license from the Department of Justice and record the names, addresses and thumbprints of ammunition purchasers.
Claiming his intention is to curtail gun violence, DeLeon said, “The real oxygen that fuels gun violence is the bullets themselves.” But Assemblyman DeLeon overlooks the fact that bullets are also necessary to defend oneself against those who illegally obtain their ammunition—despite countless gun laws.
Assemblyman DeLeon and his peers in the California legislature should read the Nordyke case to understand why gun ownership is necessary: “…the [Second Amendment] right contains both a political component—it is a means to protect the public from tyranny—and a personal component—it is a means to protect the individual from threats to life or limb.”
According to the Ninth Circuit, “Second Amendment law remains in its infancy.” Perhaps to liberal thinkers Second Amendment law is a nascent, “evolving” standard. But to those who understand our nation’s history and the importance of an armed citizenry, the right to self defense is a truth we hold to be self evident.
“Have no fear of any man, no matter what his size. When danger threatens call on me, and I will equalize.”
I think I saw one too!
lots of that goin around lately...
So when do we (can we ?) file suit against the Brady’s for violating our rights with their propaganda ?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.