Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
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.
Bump.
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.
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.
-PJ
“It is not difficult to see how 4,000 shoppers trading in modern firearms pose more danger than a crowd of history buffs in traditional garb playing with blank ammunition.”
This single comment may cause trouble for the County further down the road. Without substantial data to back that portion of the opinion the remainder of the opinion can be called into question. In essence, the judge “feels” that 4000 law-abiding citizens, engaged in a perfectly legal pastime, are more dangerous than any other similar group. According to what he said earlier in the document, there had never been a shooting at any of the gunshows before.
English may not be their first language.
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.
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.
Subscribe
The Ninth Circus seems to be turning over a new leaf lately. They got the Savana Redding case right too.