[neverdem]

Second Amendment Incorporated!

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf

[Spirochete]

The *NINTH* Circuit? Pinch me...

[Leo Farnsworth]

GO Diarmuid!

What a GREAT man!

I thought it was a pity that he lost his run for congress in the 70’s...

He's doing a fantastic job now!

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

"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.”

Yeah...terrorists. That's the ticket. That's why the framers put in that amendment....to guard against...terrorists. Right.

[btcusn]

There has to be a “BUT” to this, this is almost too good to be true!! And from the Ninth Circuit no less!!
Boy is Obama going to be pissed!
Jack

[umgud]

Heller ushered in this ruling. Now we can move forward and test what is or isn’t an infringement...... at least in the states within the 9th circuit. The rest will catch up soon however.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

I dont like it.Something is up.I know the 2nd A is for the protection of the people from an intrusive gubmint.Whats the deal on these judges?Anybody?

[Daffynition]

Awesome! Thanks for posting this!

[FrogMom]

Sorry, I’m suspicious.

Is this a “See! We don’t want to TAKE your guns! Now go register them!” moment??

[Oldeconomybuyer]

...That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us...

There seems to be a bit of wiggle room in the word "lawfully", but perhaps I'm just paranoid of the 9th Circus.

[RobRoy]

Even though it is terribly date now, every now and again I like to pull out Red Dawn.

[DustyMoment]

The majority opinion was written by Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, with a concurring opinion from Judge Ronald M. Gould, who wrote, “The right to bear arms is a bulwark against external invasion

First, it is astonishing that the Ninth Circus . . . . . er, Cicuit made this ruling. Second, while I disagree with the foundation of the ruling justice's opinion (that the right to bear arms was a bulwark against external invasion), they still made the right decision. In point of fact, the Second Amendment was written to balance the power of the people against the power of a strong central government. It still remains (IMO) possible that we may exercise our Second Amendment rights in exactly the manner that the Founding Fathers envisioned.

[ml/nj]

The majority opinion was written by Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, with a concurring opinion from Judge Ronald M. Gould, who wrote, “The right to bear arms is a bulwark against external invasion…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.”

Pyrrhic victory. This judge is a pinhead. An armed citizenry does help make us more difficult to invade. And a band of terrorists, even a hundred bands of terrorists, isn't a threat to our country. They are a threat to the unlucky people who happen to be in their midst.

No. The Second Amendment was put in place to protect us from our own politicians, thought of as "usurpers" by the Framers who would subvert the Constitution they had agreed upon. Hamilton got it right:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. -- Federalist No. 28

But why should a Federal judge cars about the Federalist Papers? That would be way too restrictive on his power.

ML/NJ

[DoughtyOne]

While I see some ground for celebration here, I am curious to know how badly the ruling against the gun show will hurt us.

The Ninth Circuit Court simply does not give ‘the right’ gifts, without taking twice as much away.

I am also curious to know how the 14th Amendment ‘aware’ Freepers view the inclusion of comments referring to that Amendment in the case for the majority on this decision.

[neverdem]

Be careful what you wish for!

Supervisor Mary King didn't want this result, IMHO.

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/

There's nothing from Alan Gura so far.

freedomwarrior998, thanks for the original thread & pdf link!

[VRWCmember]

“The Ninth Circuit ... further clarified that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment through the due process clause.”

While I'm glad the panel acknowledged this, the Second Amendment doesn't need the fourteenth to incorporate it to the states. Unlike the First Amendment, the Second Amendment does not contain the words "Congress shall make no law" anywhere in it. The second amendment says "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It doesn't say "... shall not be infringed by Congress" or "... shall not be infringed except at the discretion of the states" or anything else that would apply that it restricts the federal government but not states.

[OriginalIntent]

The second amendment was written to protect us from governmental powers. The courts for example, such as -this very same ninth circuit- when they do things like illegally rewriting law according to their judical activist whims.

When they illegally rewrite laws which force their personal wishlist upon the population, such as forcing sodomite marriage and abortion into the law based upon their reckless whims (overturning four hundred years of history, all without any consent from the citizens)

[Fast Moving Angel]

Whaaa ... ?? They got something right for a change?

[bgill]

The 2nd states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Here's the other shoe dropping: The Ninth specifically addresses a “lawfully armed populace” as opposed to what the 2nd states, “a well regulated Militia”. In other words, not that I'm a lawyer, is sounds like they're allowing local law enforcement personnel and those citizens who have registered and have their paperwork in order to be armed. However, that doesn't mean they can't make registering next to impossible. Though I don't see how they can infringe on and interpret laws concerning the rights of the States.

[Radix]

These “Judges” have no business giving Americans the OK to Rights that are inherent.

They should have refused comment and ignored the case.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

WOW!