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.
I correct myself after reading the opinion.
It is true, but the guy lost the case anyways. The ninth danced and weaved and was finally able to decide that the County could restrict possession of firearms on county property.
The people who brought the case will probably appeal it higher, I’m not optimistic the Supremes would get involved.
While the Ninth Circus rules for Incorporation of the 2nd, they gut the meaning of Incorporation by saying that strict scrutiny doesn't apply, only "heightened scrutiny".
If I'm not mistaken, this hands governments a VERY powerful tool for LIMITING what is considered infringement.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Interesting questions, with more to come.
Methinks this evaporates the home locked-storage requirement in the 9th’s jurisdiction. It presumably also eliminates the .50 ban and some other state/local prohibitions, but those won’t be given up without a fight - which starts with you in cuffs, and ends (you hope) by letting you out of a cage after several years.
Don’t underestimate the ability of an oppressive government to creatively interpret the laws it follows.
MAJOR BREAKING PING!!!
Excellent. Will read through it tonight. Will be interested in whether or not the phrase “letter of marquee and reprisal” is included in it.
Because it has been completely ignored. All gun control laws are unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment has alway applied to the states.
There is no right of the courts to “incorporate” rights.
I would certainly hope so. The fact that "assault weapons" are particularly well-suited for militia use might even give them special protections.
Another interesting aspect of this is that it may invalidate all CA registration laws. I would certainly argue that CA history includes registration of "assault weapons", with a state promise of no confiscation, followed by a ban and confiscation. In the same way that states with a record of racial discrimination in voting are held to a more strict standard than those without this record, CA deserves to be placed on a "bad actors" list as far as firearms laws are concerned.
I would hope we could argue that any confiscation history makes a state ineligible for any registration scheme.
“Dicta” is that part of a court’s ruling which explains how they came to a decision, and considered tangents, but which is not part of the final verdict.
I haven’t read the entire ruling, but I’m alway suspicious of any 9th Court ruling that appears favorable to rights.
In any case, it's fun to see a big spanner get tossed into the totalitarian gears once in a while...
I just want an M4 - and I mean the 3-position 14” version - next to my bed.
It’s not really favorable.
They managed to concentrate on Hellers discussions about a person being able to possess for home and self protection.
So now they are throwing out government-regulated “collective rights” for a very, very limited ability to have weapons.
But their conclusions are clearly at odds with any interpretation of possession in order to be part of the militia. “Militias” don’t meet in some guys basement, they meet in the open, in public.
So I don’t think this case is done yet...
-PJ
Let me see if I can work my way through this, in Heller the SCOTUS ruling held that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right under the Constitution but didn’t specifically state that their decision in Heller was binding on the 50 states; is that the point of the “incorporation” interpretation by the 9th?
Check your State’s constitution for the right to keep and bear arms, it may be more liberal in it’s application. {Meaning mentioning individuals w/o the militia, thereby depriving the opposition of that argument.}
Maybe not, check out the first section of my state’s constitution’s bill of rights:
Sec. 1. [Supreme law of the land.]
The state of New Mexico is an inseparable part of the federal union, and the constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
See, right there ALL of the Constitution applies. Period.
...WTF?
That makes NO sense 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.
That’s wrong. I can carry a loaded weapon in public. My state is an open carry state; further it’s constitution has this:
Art 2, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing
herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As
amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)
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.