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.
NOTE: the 2nd Amendment is SELF-incorporated to all government entities at every level. It is MORE ABSOLUTE than the 1st Amendment, or any of the others, because it forbids not only CONGRESS, but ABNYONE from infringing on the 2nd Amendment. The 1st says “Congress shall make no law...”. The 2nd say “shall NOT be infringed!” Period!
ditto
This is very important.
Just about ever part of the Bill of Rights has been “incorporated” – meaning that a court held that the right applied to state law [not just fed law].
Liberals do not want the second amendment to be incorporated so that states can continue to ban guns.
If the US Supreme Court affirms that the second amendment is incorporated [as they should do], then all state law will need to comply with it.
Actually, it's not: it's the same court that ruled (in Stewart) that a felon had the right to build & keep his own machineguns (if that's not "shall not be infringed", I don't know what is). Unfortunately it was effectively overturned by the Supreme Court in the extremely bizzare Raich case (to wit: the "interstate commerce" clause applies when someone reduces demand in illegal commerce - yes, you read that right).
Second Amendment incorporated against the states? Could somebody please translate the legalese?
Re-read the posts up to this point. It’s covered several times.
So, in anyones HO, how does this effect the CA Penal Coade until it gets to the SCOTUS??? I have a idea, but want to bounce it off a couple of other great minds.
Incorporation is the process by which the Bill of Rights is made applicable to the States via that 14th Amendment.
the right to bear arms is a protection against the possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with individual diligence.
Wow this came out of the Ninth Circus? That can't be right...
What it means is that the 2nd Amend. applies to the States.
Over time, most of the Bill of Rights was found to apply to the State’s through the 14th Amendment (the Incorporation Doctrine).
Some parts of the Bill of Rights that have not been historicaly applied to the States have been the 2nd Amendment (hence Chicago could ban handgun ownership), bail in state criminal cases and the right to a jury in civil cases.
That's never stopped them before.
Ah...thanks for the interpretation.
I was wondering the same for Chicago. I know that Obama said he believes in the 2A, but it was ok for states and municipalities to restrict it.
I’d also love to know how NYC will be affected should the SCOTUS confirm it.
It would be great to go to a gun show in the upstate NY area, and not have any problems bringing it back to Brooklyn. Or, even better, a gun show going to the Javits Center. Would rifles and shotguns once again be carried on the NYC subway?
I’d like to hear your opinion on this, considering your job, factor.
There is a passage in the Koran stating it is O-K for a Muslim to lie to an infidel.
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1240247034.shtml
Nordyke v. King. For those who count such things, the unanimous panel consists of a Reagan appointee (Judge O'Scannlain, who wrote), a Carter appointee (Judge Alarcon), and a Clinton appointee (Judge Gould).
The panel avoids the late 19th-century cases United States v. Cruikshank (1876) and Presser v. Illinois (1886) by reading them as simply foreclosing the direct application of the Second Amendment to the states, or the application of the Second Amendment to the states via the Privileges or Immunities Clause. The panel instead follows the Supreme Court's "selective incorporation" cases under the Due Process Clause, and concludes that the right to bear arms "ranks as fundamental, meaning 'necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty.'" (I should note that many scholars view Due Process Clause incorporation as historically unfounded, but take the view that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was originally understood as incorporating nearly all of the Bill of Rights against the states; but that is not the view the Supreme Court has taken.)
Thanks to Alice Marie Beard for the tip. Will blog more as soon as I can carefully read the opinion.
This could be huge.
I believe it means that the states are bound to allow people to keep and bear arms as well.
One judge stated (paraphrasing) that people should because of terrorism and as well for a rogue government to defend themselves and the constitution.
It may hurt gun shows, but it solidifies the position of people being able to keep guns I think.
If so Obama must be fuming at this point.
bump!
the second ammend makes sure that the Federal government can not take your guns, not the states.
the states can impose laws restricting them.
with this decision it forces the states to comply with that and extends that amendment to the states, telling the states that they can not limit your right to keep and bear arms i believe.
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.