Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Posted on 04/20/2009 10:08:38 AM PDT by freedomwarrior998
The historical record of commentary and debate by the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly indicates that they intended incorporation of the first eight Amendments (the portions of the Bill of Rights that mention specific rights) vis-a-vis the states. The original intent of the amendment was to strike down the first wave of "Black Codes" which infringed on the rights of the freedmen -- including the right to keep and bear arms, which was specifically mentioned as one of the rights that needed to be vindicated against state government infringement.
That said, the record is less clear on precisely which clause the drafters of the amendment intended as the legal basis for incorporation.
The salient point is NOT dicta, as the final judgement paragraph states: "we conclude that the Second Amendment is indeed incorporated against the states".
HOWEVER, it [ab]uses Heller to deem the fairgrounds in question a "sensitve place" where such possession may be prohibited, doing so by demonizing the show/sale as unsafe and thus regulatable, compounded by Heller giving no indication of what constitutes "sensitve place". In doing so, they also trash any application of various "free speech" arguments.
Upside: incorporation is now in play, and the 9th Circuit jurisdiction is subject to the 2nd Amendment.
Downside: what the 2nd Amendment means is still in doubt (save only for possession of mundane arms in the home).
Long-term: whatever cases covering that jurisdiction expand/contract RKBA instantly apply throughout - including Heller.
...just beware of what Heller and Nordyke formally mean before launching off into un-addressed territory. In the current judicial climate, it's basically "guilty until proven innocent" and "that which is not authorized is forbidden", unlike what our Founding Fathers intended.
Actually, it’s hard to believe the Ninth wrote this”
I’m wondering if events since Feb. have caused the Justices to rethink liberalness.
Bump.
All good questions.
I think you are right that you lost the battle but won the war. And the battle can still be waged if they lock down the guns at the shows actually. It can be challenged.
This would not apply to gun storage, if anything it will hurt accessibility because that is why they closed the loophole on the shows. It allowed access to anyone by the nature of it from what i gather.
crossing state lines again, will not be changed by this. Because each state will have to do it’s own regulation. But the fact is that they can not regulate them away entirely because of this decision as Obama would be trying very soon.
Again, the question of the .60 or any other cal is probably going to be left up to the state to regulate, but can be challenged directly.
It is law, they can not get around it at all now.
I don;t think that there are any immediate gains, but considering how Obama wants to disarm all of us and I believe he does. This seriously puts a damper on his plans.
The Brady bunch are probably taking their nitro pills by the handfuls today.
Could you explain what you mean by “is NOT dicta”?
This came out of the 9th circuit??
Ok, so who put the truth serum into their coffee.....
This is amazing. Well, one thing is for sure, the filers in the case (on the losing side) will likely take it to SCOTUS.
So would this mean that CA’s own AWB is/will be void?
please tell me what page, i did not find an article VI in
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf
Probably not.
They are basing their opinion on Heller.
“The Nordykes now argue that the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller abrogates our case law and compels the district court to grant their motion for leave to amend their complaint.
To reach this argument on the merits, we must first decide whether Heller abrogated Hickman.
It did.”
Nuff said. No more collective right.
Heard about this earlier... I am still awaiting confirmation, as an incorporation ruling from the 9th Circus Court seems like it must be a cruel joke! But if so, this is baaaaad news for Obama’s pack of criminals and their supporters...
He’s also now a book salesman to boot!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/19/book-given-obama-chavez-flies-amazon-rankings/
Article VI of the US Constitution.
Any constituional scholars out there know?
Isn't this the BEST we hoped for in Heller?
Article VI of the Constitution has not stopped the states from trying desperately to limit guns through regulation.
This one decision will have a greater impact on that now because it is talking about guns for protection directly.
It strengthens it so much that I have to wonder what happened in that court.
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Huh... Looks like it was "incorporated" in the very legislation used by the States and Congress to pass it in the first place.
William Rawle on the Second Amendment
The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
Game. Set. Match.
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.