Guns: how much longer will it take ....

OMG!!!

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that the Second Amendment is incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment!!!!!!!

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

OMG!!!

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that the Second Amendment is incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment!!!!!!!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Ninth-Circuit-Rules-2nd-bw-14977761.html

Kiss those assault weapons bans goodbye, NYC, California, and Boston!

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

oralloy wrote:
OMG!!!

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that the Second Amendment is incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment!!!!!!!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Ninth-Circuit-Rules-2nd-bw-14977761.html

Kiss those assault weapons bans goodbye, NYC, California, and Boston!

The ruling:

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

2 Replies

@oralloy,

What case are you talking about? Does it say that the 2A gives a person the right to bear an assault weapon?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

oralloy wrote:
oralloy wrote:
OMG!!!

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that the Second Amendment is incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment!!!!!!!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Ninth-Circuit-Rules-2nd-bw-14977761.html

Kiss those assault weapons bans goodbye, NYC, California, and Boston!

The ruling:

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

"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. 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."

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

What case are you talking about?

Nordyke:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&cPath=18_19&products_id=283468-2&tID=5

Advocate wrote:

Does it say that the 2A gives a person the right to bear an assault weapon?

Heller does that, when it says the Second Amendment deserves the same standard of scrutiny that the other rights get.

That means the government can't ban a pistol grip on a rifle unless it has a compelling reason to do so.

There is no compelling reason to ban pistol grips.

What this ruling does is say the Heller ruling is binding on state and local governments.

It isn't the Supreme Court though, so the ruling is only binding on California and the other Pacific states.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Quote:

oralloy wrote:
OMG!!!

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that the Second Amendment is incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment!!!!!!!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Ninth-Circuit-Rules-2nd-bw-14977761.html

Kiss those assault weapons bans goodbye, NYC, California, and Boston!

OK: so now the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated
to curtail and confine the power of the States on the West Coast.
The affected States are:

Alaska, Arizona, California,
Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

The difference shoud be felt most noticeably in California and Hawaii,
which are repressive against the right of self-defense.
For the most part, freedom already prevails in the other States and 100% in Alaska,
which has repealed ALL of its anti-gun laws.

However, I strongly wish that the 7th Circuit
will take an anti-freedom position, rejecting the reasoning
of HELLER so that we can get the issue in front of the USSC
ASAP, on the basis of a division among the circuits.

From what the USSC said in HELLER incorporation of 2nd Amendment protections of personal liberty against the States
is a foregone conclusion

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oralloy wrote:
oralloy wrote:
OMG!!!

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that the Second Amendment is incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment!!!!!!!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Ninth-Circuit-Rules-2nd-bw-14977761.html

Kiss those assault weapons bans goodbye, NYC, California, and Boston!

OK: so now the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated
to curtail and confine the power of the States on the West Coast.
The affected States are:

Alaska, Arizona, California,
Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

The difference shoud be felt most noticeably in California and Hawaii,
which are repressive against the right of self-defense.
For the most part, freedom already prevails in the other States and 100% in Alaska,
which has repealed ALL of its anti-gun laws.

However, I strongly wish that the 7th Circuit
will take an anti-freedom position, rejecting the reasoning
of HELLER so that we can get the issue in front of the USSC
ASAP, on the basis of a division among the circuits.

From what the USSC said in HELLER incorporation of 2nd Amendment protections of personal liberty against the States
is a foregone conclusion

David

The 7th Circuit is indeed likely to go negative on civil rights. They can't ignore Heller though, since it came from the Supreme Court. But they can (and likely will) refuse incorporation, which will give the disparity of opinion you desire.

That lawsuit is being run by the same legal team that did Heller in DC, and they chose plaintiffs that are likely to get the court to hear their appeals. It is pretty likely the Supremes will hear the Chicago case when the time comes.

Another avenue is to simply find an oppressive local gun law (maybe something in San Francisco?) and get the Ninth Circuit to toss it out. Then it will be the City of San Francisco that will be making the appeal to the Supreme Court.

1 Reply

I am excited about the possibilities with this new ruling.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oralloy wrote:
oralloy wrote:
OMG!!!

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that the Second Amendment is incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment!!!!!!!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Ninth-Circuit-Rules-2nd-bw-14977761.html

Kiss those assault weapons bans goodbye, NYC, California, and Boston!

OK: so now the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated
to curtail and confine the power of the States on the West Coast.
The affected States are:

Alaska, Arizona, California,
Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

The difference shoud be felt most noticeably in California and Hawaii,
which are repressive against the right of self-defense.
For the most part, freedom already prevails in the other States and 100% in Alaska,
which has repealed ALL of its anti-gun laws.

However, I strongly wish that the 7th Circuit
will take an anti-freedom position, rejecting the reasoning
of HELLER so that we can get the issue in front of the USSC
ASAP, on the basis of a division among the circuits.

From what the USSC said in HELLER incorporation of 2nd Amendment protections of personal liberty against the States
is a foregone conclusion

David

Quote:

The 7th Circuit is indeed likely to go negative on civil rights. They can't ignore Heller though, since it came from the Supreme Court. But they can (and likely will) refuse incorporation, which will give the disparity of opinion you desire.

That lawsuit is being run by the same legal team that did Heller in DC, and they chose plaintiffs that are likely to get the court to hear their appeals. It is pretty likely the Supremes will hear the Chicago case when the time comes.

Another avenue is to simply find an oppressive local gun law (maybe something in San Francisco?) and get the Ninth Circuit to toss it out. Then it will be the City of San Francisco that will be making the appeal to the Supreme Court.

After the pro-freedom side won in the DC US Circuit Court of Appeals,
I was acutely aware of the catastrophic potential
of D.C. simply accepting its fate from the CCA
and failing to appeal to the USSC.

Freedom lovers thru out America needed D.C. to appeal to the USSC
in order to get what we got.

The next evolution in the restoral of our liberty
will be to extend our constitutional protection
to walking in the street with defensive gunnery.

David

0 Replies

So, Olga:
Based on the US Supreme Court 's decision in HELLER
and the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals' decision in NORDYKE:
" Guns: how much longer will it take .... " ?????

David

0 Replies

Thanks for providing the text of the Nordyke case, which is very interesting. I guess you noted that the appellants lost their argument that the provision barring them from having gun shows on county-owned land is unconstitutional.

In my opinion, Nordyke does not in any way support the proposition that assault weapons cannot be banned from the general public.

3 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate, I think the logic trail is as follows.

1) Heller says that you cannot ban assault weapons without some very compelling reason (probably more compelling than simply political).
2) There was some concern about Heller because DC is federal land, not semi-sovereign like the states are supposed to be.
3) The Nordyke case states that the bill of rights applies to the states (including the 2nd amendment, and thus the Heller decision) based on the 14th amendment.

I'm just trying to summarize what I think the thought being expressed is. I don't know the validity of what I've written, but this is what I believe the argument is.

Maybe someone who is making the argument could clarify if I've said anything wrong.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Thanks for providing the text of the Nordyke case, which is very interesting. I guess you noted that the appellants lost their argument that the provision barring them from having gun shows on county-owned land is unconstitutional.

In my opinion, Nordyke does not in any way support the proposition that assault weapons cannot be banned from the general public.

It is the Heller decision that says you can't ban assault weapons.

All Nordyke does is say that Heller applies to state and local governments (at least within the 9th Circuit).

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Advocate, I think the logic trail is as follows.

1) Heller says that you cannot ban assault weapons without some very compelling reason (probably more compelling than simply political).
2) There was some concern about Heller because DC is federal land, not semi-sovereign like the states are supposed to be.
3) The Nordyke case states that the bill of rights applies to the states (including the 2nd amendment, and thus the Heller decision) based on the 14th amendment.

I'm just trying to summarize what I think the thought being expressed is. I don't know the validity of what I've written, but this is what I believe the argument is.

Maybe someone who is making the argument could clarify if I've said anything wrong.

That is pretty good. Most of the Bill of Rights is already applied to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling just did the same for the Second Amendment.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Heller does not address assault weapons. The oralloy interpretation is hilarious, lacking all merit.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Heller does not address assault weapons. The oralloy interpretation is hilarious, lacking all merit.

Oh yes it does.

Heller says the Second Amendment deserves the same standard of scrutiny that other fundamental rights get.

That means strict scrutiny.

That means you can only ban assault weapons if you can show a compelling reason to ban pistol grips.

Can you show any compelling reason for banning a pistol grip?

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Quote:

Thanks for providing the text of the Nordyke case, which is very interesting.

I guess you noted that the appellants lost their argument that
the provision barring them from having gun shows on county-owned land is unconstitutional.

The prevailing counter-argument appears to have been:
"The County responds that the Nordykes’ objection to the Ordinance
has nothing to do with self-defense and everything to do with profit."

" . . . we conclude that although the Second Amendment,
applied through the Due Process Clause,
protects a right to keep and bear arms for individual self-defense,
it does not contain an entitlement to bring guns onto government property."

I disagree with this,
in that every citizen owns the government and its property.

The Advocate wrote:

Quote:

In my opinion, Nordyke does not in any way support the proposition
that assault weapons cannot be banned from the general public.

A computer is an assault weapon,
if u throw it at some unfortunate victim; the same as a spiked mace.

Concern about this is 100% emotion,
given the number of crimes committed with pistol grips or bayonettes.

all fluff; no substance

In any case, NORDYKE said:
"Heller identified several reasons why the militia was considered
“necessary to the security of a free state.”
First, “it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections.
Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary . . . .
Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms
and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.” Id. at 2800-01.
In addition to these civic purposes, Heller characterized
the right to keep and bear arms as a corollary
to the individual right of self-defense. Id. at 2817
(“[T]he inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right.”). Thus the right contains both a
political component"it is a means to protect the public from tyranny"
and a personal component"
it is a means to protect the individual from threats to life or limb. "

Insofar as defending the public from tyranny (as did the Founders),
the public shoud possess reasonably powerful weapons
to defeat the tyranny 's army. Yes ?

David

0 Replies

WHATAYATHINK ?

Obviously, NORDYKE applied the rights explicitly secured in HELLER
to the western states of America, all of which had them already anyway,
except for California and Hawaii.
That consisted of the rights to keep and bear loaded guns,
ready for defensive emergency action, in each citizen 's home.

As I see it,
NORDYKE leaves it an open question as to whether
the citizens of the western part of America have a constitutional right
to carry defensive gunnery as pedestrians in the streets.

In other words,
the NORDYKE court believes that it is terrible
if a criminal breaks in on u while u r in your bedroom or bathroom
so u can have the means to fight back there,
but
if u fall victim to criminals like Reginald Denny did,
that 's not so bad, so we have no comment about that.

David

0 Replies

Heller is not as broad as many imply. Heller made it clear that government can ban gun possession by felons and the mentally challenged. The next step is to ban certain types of weapons, such as assault type.

2 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know