Posted on 04/20/2009 10:08:38 AM PDT by freedomwarrior998
Alice Marie Beard: The Ninth Circuit has apparently held, in the Nordyke case, that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment; opinion to come shortly. I will certainly blog more when I can read the opinion.
Please note the possibility of error in all such breaking news stories, posted before the opinion is read; I will certainly correct any such error as soon as possible if it turns out the initial account is indeed mistaken.
Argued and Submitted
January 15, 2009—San Francisco, California
Filed April 20, 2009
There should be no such thing as “reasonable regulation” allowed. These people do not understand what “shall not be infringed” means.
You got some real rabid politicians there.
sounds more like a ploy to eliminate States rights and the 10th amendment rights.
Look at some of these gun laws NY is trying to put through. there is one that states if any of the parts of this bill is declared unconstitutional by federal law, the remaining parts shall still be in force.
sweethearts all these anti gunners.
“Also, important governmental interests will justify reasonable regulation of rifles and handguns, and the problem for our courts will be to define, in the context of particular regulation by the states and municipalities, what is reasonable.”
Sets the stage for some “Strict Scrutiny” decisions.
I think it is a very favorable. First of all, they are right about the gun shows. There has never been a right to sell weapons on county property, and there is no stretch of the 2A which will give you that right.
They clearly overreached on what can be defined as a "sensitive area", and their degree of scrutiny seems too low, but we are in a much stronger position to attack those points now than we were before the ruling.
The Supremes have yet to speak on the "bear" part of the 2A, Heller only addresses the "keep" part. If we can get a case before the court before one of "our" judges leaves, we may see a lot of progress.
I think we have to understand, we aren't going to get everything we want in one fell swoop, but the momentum is clearly on our side. Our position got a lot stronger today.
One of the things no one seems to have addressed is that incorporation gives every citizen "standing" to bring 2A challenges to any law. The floodgates are about to open, even if only in the 9th circuit. There are a lot of people who live there, and both CA and HI have very onerous laws.
English may not be their first language.
I think in the back of everyone's mind rest the knowledge that having a gun when you need it beats not having one. Even the Chicago thug may know of such an instance.
The wisdom of the 2nd ammendment is that those who understand it survive, and those who don't, don't. This 'wisdom' doesn't breakdown according to ideology- it breaks down when an authority wishes to enslave a particular segment of the population.
Woe to the dictators of the world should this 'concept' ever catch on.
Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty for Smith and Wesson, Colt, Browning, Sturm Ruger, Berreta, Glock, Taurus, H&K, FN, Kimber, (have I left anyone out?) Holsters makers, Ammo Dudes, Reloaders, Powder Dudes, Primer Dudes, and the folks at the NRA, GOA, JPFA, SAS, etc. And that Russian guy who built the '47.
Frankly, most people have not. It is NEVER taught in schools. In any case, you are very welcome.
Great ruling on incorporation. However, serious flaws in the application: nothing in the 2nd Amendments language or history limits the right to only home defense. That’s absurd on its face. How is a militia supposed to function without being able to carry their arms outside the home with them? Was the first revolution fought only inside peoples homes? No.
Also, as an identified fundamental right the government’s burden was supposed to be strict scrutiny. Very few, if any, gun laws will survive such a properly-applied judicial test. The County law at issue could not survive a proper Strict Scrutiny application of this fundamental right.
Ninth circus?
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Notice they didn't note that the right to keep and bear arms is mandated by the 2nd Amendment, but rather that is was merely a traditional concept? That's because they are ruling under administrative law, which is presumed to be applied to all the natural persons in order to make them corporate employees of the federal government. That's how "rights" gets turned into "privileges," and why the 14th Amendment becomes relevent - it addresses federally-created corporate persons and employees.
Don't like it? Tough - the status change is a judicially recognized presumption. And therefore, because it is not proven fact, it need not be disproven. And so there are no judicially recognized methods to dismiss this presumption, let alone disprove it.
Oh, and they've also ruled that they don't have to inform you of this presumption, either, and if you even step foot in court you've accepted their presumption by showing up (and of course they throw you in jail if you don't).
BTW, this is also the little gotcha that defeats people who claim their rights against unfair taxation.
Kafka was a piker.
I see two sides to this.
More study needed.
Weird huh.....
There's nothing perverse about it.
The Constitution is an instrument for defining the limits of Federal power and was not designed to be applied to the States. The Framers did not intend for the Constitution to apply to the States, except in those places in the document in which the States were explicitly mentioned. Unfortunately, Chief Justice Taney effectively nullified years of the proper understanding of sovereignty by his decision in the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. Like most sweeping decisions made without an overwhelming popular mandate, it was a horrible mistake. A reversal of that decision required a Civil War and a Constitutional Amendment -- XIV.
The XIVth Amendment was intended to extend the concept of citizenship to Americans as Americans and not merely as citizens of the States in which they reside. Until that Amendment, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States; or so Justice Taney held.
Whether the Court should simply have argued that all of the Bill of Rights should be "incorporated" immediately by the XIVth Amendment is debatable. Being a Right of the People, and not of the States, Amendment II should have been incorporated long ago. But it is a very radical and certainly not a conservative opinion to think that the Court in the mid-1860's should suddenly have swept away all of the States' powers and immunities created by a century of statute and tradition. And there are clearly still parts of the Bill of Rights which do not apply to the States.
Please read post #136. It was intended for you, and I mistakenly pointed it at the original poster.
So can 21st century Americans. It's legal as church on Sunday. You can own all the 18th century cannons that you can afford to feed.
You just can't have a 155 with modern ignition.
Antique 2 pounders are fun. I have an uncle that builds them.
/johnny
BS. These were 'rights' being expressed, not priviledges the states could do away with on a whim. Not one state would have signed on if this were the case.
My people will not be slaves, and the first step in this direction would be to disarm them. What you and your folks do is your business, but you'd better think long and hard about what you'll impose on my people or my family. I repeat, we will not be slaves.
Thanks for the ping!
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.