Posted on 09/30/2009 11:50:05 AM PDT by JohnPierce
Even as you are reading this, the Second Amendment offers you no protection whatsoever from state gun laws! But today, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of McDonald v. Chicago and we may soon finally see the Second Amendment take its rightful place as a protection for ALL Americans!
(Excerpt) Read more at opencarry.org ...
Here in California, our state constitution says we specifically accept all the Federal Constitution as governing so I am not quite sure you are right.
Many state constitutions have in them full acceptance of the federal constitution.
Hmm, I would disagree with that based on the 10th amendment. This has also been backed up by recent court decision out of the 9th circuit.
I was unaware of that. Do you know which article of the California Constitution incorporates the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights?
Thanks.
John
meant the 14th!
You are exactly correct that the Fourteenth Amendment is the vehicle by which we are attempting to incorporate the Second Amendment. And you are correct that this was the rationale used by the Ninth Circuit in Nordyke. However, that ruling was only ever binding upon the Ninth Circuit and even that is no longer true since it is currently under en-banc review.
We NEED to win this case. Thankfully, Alan Gura is one of the great legal strategists of our time and has chosen his case just as well here as he did in Heller!
Look up the case Nordyke Vs. King where the 9th circuit ruled the 2nd amendment was incorporated throught the 14th amendment due process clause. This was faily recent and very significant case.
They effectively ruled the state of CA was bound by the 2nd amemdment.
I still wonder how this decision came out of the 9th circus, I mean circuit to begin with. They must have forgotten their identity for a day!
Anyway I think any honest debate would conclude the framers wanted the right to bear arms to be universal throughout the land. Even most of the NFA laws are based on interstate commerce. A concept which is quite frankly laughable.
The Ninth Circuit ruled the way they did for the same reason that many liberal law professors and liberal groups are supporting Second Amendment incorporation. A revitalized Privileges or Immunities clause would open the door for broader federal protections of “natural” rights as well as enumerated rights.
I should add “In my opinion” :)
I’m not following. How does this help the libs and thier agenda? I’m just asking. I mean they (libs) clearly don’t want the second amendment to be applied in the way it was intended. So what’s in this for the left?
Our pre-amble references God for our freedoms. (Might be outlawed today.
“We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.”
This one the privacy part would never be believed today:
“SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property,and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”
Might be what I was thinking of:
“Except as may be precluded by the Constitution of the UnitedStates, every existing judgment, decree, writ, or other order of a court of this State, whenever rendered,”
Lists references to the Fed like the 14th amendment.
“1) except to remedy a specific violation by such
party that would also constitute a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and (2) unless a federal court would be permitted under federal decisional law to impose that obligation or responsibility upon such party to remedy the specific violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
Why do you think they will revitalize the Privileges or Immunities clause?
The key distinction is that the First Amendment has been incorporated via the Due Process clause (in Gitlow, etc) whereas we have not YET done so with the Second. HOWEVER, McDonald is the case to get this done! :)
They are willing to accept the Second Amendment in order to secure to the federal government the power to protect a broader vein of unenumerated civil rights.
Again ... just my opinion. For a detailed discussion see
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202428529045
There are two reasons.
First, the liberal members of the court would like to see the federal government become the caretaker of all civil rights. Couple that with the comments made recently by Thomas in Saenz v. Roe which imply a willingness of some conservative members to revisit the issue and you have a voting block.
Second, the petition for McDonald raises the issue very effectively and features amicus briefs from both sides of the political spectrum. Most scholars agree that it is time for Slaughter-House to fall and this case, featuring an enumerated, fundamental right, which has yet to be incorporated via the Due Process clause is the perfect vehicle in which to do so.
Just my opinion.
Sounds reasonable. I agree with most scholars FWIW. It would certainly give the court even more power to find unenumerated rights though. Not that they were having trouble to begin with.
incorporate first, then use 'common sense' regulations that would be applied to every state ???
“.... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
What part of “shall not be infringed” is so difficult for some to understand.
If this means nothing, then the entire constitution and all laws created by it’s authorization is also meaningless.
There are some that would argue that attempts to seriously prohibit a citizen from being able to defend his life and the lives of his loved ones, could be an act that justifies an extreme and vigorous response, if you know what I mean.
Some consider the right to protect oneself as a basic right and the cornerstone for all other rights.
I double-dog dare the traitors of this country to outlaw guns and create laws to prohibit and confound my right to protect myself.
I am no longer interested in a peaceful or gentleman’s debate for something the constitution has already clearly decided. Enough is enough with this paper cut attempt to destroy our constitution and thus our country. For those that insist to force this issue, I say bring it friging on. Let’s get this over with so that our children may live in freedom.
I’ll take a SWAG that there are millions of patriots that are willing to fight for their freedom, country and lives, so those that continue to try to destroy us should be careful with what they seem to be begging for, they just might get it.
Having said all of that I must explain that I am a very peaceful guy that would not want to harm anyone, just like I believe most law abiding folks are...... but I will not be pushed over a cliff and it is very dangerous to even try to push folks like me off the cliff.
In America, we have the right to be secure in our person, property and things. We have the right to be left alone and without government interference in our law abiding lives. Just leave us alone, that’s all you have to do... just leave us alone.
Many of those that came before us fought and died for our freedom and rights ... it is very unsafe to think that their children and grandchildren, great grandchildren and so on, are not willing to do the same.
Sorry for the rant, but the continued attacks against our constitution, carried out by the very people WE put in power.... is wearing on me.
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.