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.
This is silly. Article VI of the US Constitution already does this. Alway has.
bump
That is not correct. Read Article VI.
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.17 We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf pg 29
13 posted on Monday, April 20, 2009 1:17:38 PM by VeniVidiVici
Whoe Nellie! Hallelujah! Courtesy of the 9th Circus? I got to read it ASAP.
Mayor Daley needs the Heimlich maneuver about now, I suspect.
Well, that depends on how you look at privileges and immunities in the 14th. Before the 14th it was pretty clear that the BOR applied only to the feds. After the 14th, there are conflicting legal results, which will have to be overturned (by this ruling?). I would feel better if this ruling wasn’t coming from the most overturned circuit in the country.
I just scanned the text. It sounds like the court upheld the county. While the ocurt said some pretty good things, it also said that the county could ban guns on its property. Essentially to whomever it wishes.
This is a terrible decision. It took pains to acknowledge the Heller vs dc case, but it seemed to bend over and do a triple twist followed by a deep knee bend to support the county.
Did I read it right?
Maybe it means the 9th circuit, activist all, would rather see the gun issue fought state by state entirely rather than from a united, inclusive national, Constitutional position underpinned by the all-important Second Amendment. No doubt the 9th Circuit would like to see a Constitutional Convention over the issue so even more changes might be in the offing...maybe a Soviet or UN style Constitution. Another good way to disunite the country and increase the “efficiency” of govt. without public “interference” by pesky citizens.
Without the second amendment nationally applied to all states, the states may divide into “wet and dry” gun rights states under the 10th Amendment with all the accompanying problems with a huge number of increased interstate “border” problems. With such a windfall, drug cartels and their foreign allies will get into interstate and intrastate gun running in an even bigger way with further infiltration into state and especially county govts. Disuniting and instrumental in initiating and sustaining further chaos fits right in with the Cloward-Piven strategy. “Gun-running” will become pervasive if the 9th Circuit is allowed to prevail. It is better for the States to fight their own defense of the 2nd Amendment abolition, but keep it instituted at a national, Constitutional level as it is now. The 9th Circuit is a Serial Pandoras’ Box Opener.
The 9th Circuit has seized an “opportunity” to foster potential elimination the Constitutional Second Amendment and create a Constitutional “crisis”. And, again, with the Cloward-Piven Strategy in mind, and, in self-proclaimed clear conscience that the States themselves have “caused” the problem, the 9th Circuit is acting to further the demise of the Second Amendment. By emphasizing the 10th Amendment in an attempt to strengthen States Rights with special attention to the gun issue, the 9th Circuit seems to be saying that the country can no longer have both the 1oth Amendment and the 2nd Amendment at the same time, and that is is practical from their point of view that it is the Second Amendment that must go.
From the 9th Circuit Court?...no surprise here except for the ingenuity of methods to further the cause of deconstruction and chaos.
Keeping the Constitution as well as States Rights intact is of the greatest importance, especially with a POTUS and political party who do not like it as it has existed and does exist. The 9th Circuit is meddling once again in a way that will do the country no good at all.
Ping me if someone answers will you? The current state of the law, as you know, is that you must have permission to get a CCW, and you cannot carry a loaded gun in public.
I concur in Judge O’Scannlain’s opinion but write to elaborate my view of the policies underlying the selective incorporation decision. First, as Judge O’Scannlain has aptly explained, the rights secured by the Second Amendment are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and “necessary to the Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty.” The salient policies underlying the protection of the right to bear arms are of inestimable importance. The right to bear arms is a bulwark against external invasion. We should not be overconfident that oceans on our east and west coasts alone can preserve security. We recently saw in the case of the terrorist attack on Mumbai that terrorists may enter a country covertly by ocean routes, landing in small craft and then assembling to wreak havoc. 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. Second, 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. Third, while the Second Amendment thus stands as a protection against both external threat and internal tyranny, the recognition of the individual’s right in the Second Amendment, and its incorporation by the Due Process Clause against the states, is not inconsistent with the reasonable regulation of weaponry. All weapons are not “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment, so, for example, no individual could sensibly argue that the Second Amendment gives them a right to have nuclear weapons or chemical weapons in their home for self-defense. 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.In the end, the court finds that the County can limit gunshows on county property, but the incorporation finding is in itself remarkable.
I agree. Incorporation as binding upon the states occurs when they ratify the Constitution. The modern “law process” conception is a bastard conception. Yet, there are graduations in the Bill of Rights, as another poster pointed out. Those rights which include “Congress shall make no law”, do not stop the States from making law. Nor is it clear to me that the 14th changes much of that.
This looks to me like a thread you’ll want to watch.
From what I read so far, the 9th is going thru contortions to submit to overriding/precedent rulings - not so much because it wants to but because it has to (ex. “The Second Amendment protects a right that predates the Constitution; therefore, the Constitution did not grant it. ... It necessarily follows that the Privileges or Immunities Clause did not protect the right to keep and bear arms because it was not a right of citizens of the United States. See Cruikshank”). One hope is that an appeal would bring these bizzare overriding rulings into stark examination by SCOTUS, and be duly eviscerated.
Good. Incorporate b4its2late.
18th century Americans,could if they wished and could afford one,have their own cannon!Ships often had six or eight to fight off pirates!
I'd love to see American flagged vessels with American citizen crews deliver a few dozen well-aimed 75mm shells to the pirates.
I think we lost the gun show on county property battle, but won the war.
As someone who has residences in both CA and OR, I live in the 9th circuit, and now start to wonder about how this will be applied.
Hopefully, the first to go will be CA's onerous gun storage requirements, clearly illegal by comparison with Heller.
Then we get to the CCW question. Both CA and OR refuse to accept out-of-state permits. How does this fly with the "full faith and credit" clause?
CA has outlawed .50 cal rifles, are they now legal?
Overall a wonderful decision.
Are all states in the 9th are now bound by the decision, no waiting for incorporation from the Supremes, or do they have some way around that?
If true, we can now define what is or isn’t an infringement. Oh what a great day is both true and final.
Never thought of that re the First and Seconds...thanks!
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.