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.
Hopeful bump.
“Nordyke v. King is a case challenging an effective ban on gun shows on county property by the county of Alameda. While the case was originally about gun shows on county property, it’s mainly interesting recently (Mar 2009) because it may be the first case to “incorporate” the Second Amendment against the states.”
If true, it will go straight to the Supreme Court, do not pass go...
Ninth? If true, that’s astounding.
The liberals are probably already squealing.
Here pig pig pig...Here pig pig pig!!
Ok...for the judicially challenged (me), what does this mean?
Can’t figure this out. Of course the 2nd amendment, and the 20th and 6th whatever, cover all the states. Am I missing something? Will continue reading the thread and articles.
I don't know what that means
Absent incorporation, the Amendment would not have applied to the States.
============
[12] We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right.
It has long been regarded as the “true palladium of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later.
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.17 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
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf pg 29
Actually, it’s hard to believe the Ninth wrote this. Maybe their warm milk was spiked.
Means that the states have to respect citizens’ RKBA, that the states have to obey the 2nd Amendment. (Perversely, the Supreme Court has required individual court cases to impose the Bill Of Rights on the states, per the 14th Amendment, one right at a time - and the 2nd hasn’t been so ruled on.)
:’)
“Incorporation” means that it falls under the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizens’ rights against the states, as well as against the federal government. IOW, Congress cannot infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and neither can states and localities.
Amazingly the appointees were Reagan, Clinton and Carter.
Yes: the Constitutional amendments, legally (thanks to perverse judicial history), do NOT apply to the states until the Supreme Court says they do - one right at a time.
NOTE: the 2nd Amendment is SELF-incorporated to all government entities at every level. It is MORE ABSOLUTE than the 1st Amendment, or any of the others, because it forbids not only CONGRESS, but ABNYONE from infringing on the 2nd Amendment. The 1st says “Congress shall make no law...”. The 2nd say “shall NOT be infringed!” Period!
ditto
This is very important.
Just about ever part of the Bill of Rights has been “incorporated” – meaning that a court held that the right applied to state law [not just fed law].
Liberals do not want the second amendment to be incorporated so that states can continue to ban guns.
If the US Supreme Court affirms that the second amendment is incorporated [as they should do], then all state law will need to comply with it.
Actually, it's not: it's the same court that ruled (in Stewart) that a felon had the right to build & keep his own machineguns (if that's not "shall not be infringed", I don't know what is). Unfortunately it was effectively overturned by the Supreme Court in the extremely bizzare Raich case (to wit: the "interstate commerce" clause applies when someone reduces demand in illegal commerce - yes, you read that right).
Second Amendment incorporated against the states? Could somebody please translate the legalese?
Re-read the posts up to this point. It’s covered several times.
So, in anyones HO, how does this effect the CA Penal Coade until it gets to the SCOTUS??? I have a idea, but want to bounce it off a couple of other great minds.
Incorporation is the process by which the Bill of Rights is made applicable to the States via that 14th Amendment.
the right to bear arms is a protection against the possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with individual diligence.
Wow this came out of the Ninth Circus? That can't be right...
What it means is that the 2nd Amend. applies to the States.
Over time, most of the Bill of Rights was found to apply to the State’s through the 14th Amendment (the Incorporation Doctrine).
Some parts of the Bill of Rights that have not been historicaly applied to the States have been the 2nd Amendment (hence Chicago could ban handgun ownership), bail in state criminal cases and the right to a jury in civil cases.
That's never stopped them before.
Ah...thanks for the interpretation.
I was wondering the same for Chicago. I know that Obama said he believes in the 2A, but it was ok for states and municipalities to restrict it.
I’d also love to know how NYC will be affected should the SCOTUS confirm it.
It would be great to go to a gun show in the upstate NY area, and not have any problems bringing it back to Brooklyn. Or, even better, a gun show going to the Javits Center. Would rifles and shotguns once again be carried on the NYC subway?
I’d like to hear your opinion on this, considering your job, factor.
There is a passage in the Koran stating it is O-K for a Muslim to lie to an infidel.
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1240247034.shtml
Nordyke v. King. For those who count such things, the unanimous panel consists of a Reagan appointee (Judge O'Scannlain, who wrote), a Carter appointee (Judge Alarcon), and a Clinton appointee (Judge Gould).
The panel avoids the late 19th-century cases United States v. Cruikshank (1876) and Presser v. Illinois (1886) by reading them as simply foreclosing the direct application of the Second Amendment to the states, or the application of the Second Amendment to the states via the Privileges or Immunities Clause. The panel instead follows the Supreme Court's "selective incorporation" cases under the Due Process Clause, and concludes that the right to bear arms "ranks as fundamental, meaning 'necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty.'" (I should note that many scholars view Due Process Clause incorporation as historically unfounded, but take the view that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was originally understood as incorporating nearly all of the Bill of Rights against the states; but that is not the view the Supreme Court has taken.)
Thanks to Alice Marie Beard for the tip. Will blog more as soon as I can carefully read the opinion.
This could be huge.
I believe it means that the states are bound to allow people to keep and bear arms as well.
One judge stated (paraphrasing) that people should because of terrorism and as well for a rogue government to defend themselves and the constitution.
It may hurt gun shows, but it solidifies the position of people being able to keep guns I think.
If so Obama must be fuming at this point.
bump!
the second ammend makes sure that the Federal government can not take your guns, not the states.
the states can impose laws restricting them.
with this decision it forces the states to comply with that and extends that amendment to the states, telling the states that they can not limit your right to keep and bear arms i believe.
This is silly. Article VI of the US Constitution already does this. Alway has.
bump
That is not correct. Read Article VI.
Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right.
It has long been regarded as the “true palladium of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later.
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.17 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
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf pg 29
13 posted on Monday, April 20, 2009 1:17:38 PM by VeniVidiVici
Whoe Nellie! Hallelujah! Courtesy of the 9th Circus? I got to read it ASAP.
Mayor Daley needs the Heimlich maneuver about now, I suspect.
Well, that depends on how you look at privileges and immunities in the 14th. Before the 14th it was pretty clear that the BOR applied only to the feds. After the 14th, there are conflicting legal results, which will have to be overturned (by this ruling?). I would feel better if this ruling wasn’t coming from the most overturned circuit in the country.
I just scanned the text. It sounds like the court upheld the county. While the ocurt said some pretty good things, it also said that the county could ban guns on its property. Essentially to whomever it wishes.
This is a terrible decision. It took pains to acknowledge the Heller vs dc case, but it seemed to bend over and do a triple twist followed by a deep knee bend to support the county.
Did I read it right?
Maybe it means the 9th circuit, activist all, would rather see the gun issue fought state by state entirely rather than from a united, inclusive national, Constitutional position underpinned by the all-important Second Amendment. No doubt the 9th Circuit would like to see a Constitutional Convention over the issue so even more changes might be in the offing...maybe a Soviet or UN style Constitution. Another good way to disunite the country and increase the “efficiency” of govt. without public “interference” by pesky citizens.
Without the second amendment nationally applied to all states, the states may divide into “wet and dry” gun rights states under the 10th Amendment with all the accompanying problems with a huge number of increased interstate “border” problems. With such a windfall, drug cartels and their foreign allies will get into interstate and intrastate gun running in an even bigger way with further infiltration into state and especially county govts. Disuniting and instrumental in initiating and sustaining further chaos fits right in with the Cloward-Piven strategy. “Gun-running” will become pervasive if the 9th Circuit is allowed to prevail. It is better for the States to fight their own defense of the 2nd Amendment abolition, but keep it instituted at a national, Constitutional level as it is now. The 9th Circuit is a Serial Pandoras’ Box Opener.
The 9th Circuit has seized an “opportunity” to foster potential elimination the Constitutional Second Amendment and create a Constitutional “crisis”. And, again, with the Cloward-Piven Strategy in mind, and, in self-proclaimed clear conscience that the States themselves have “caused” the problem, the 9th Circuit is acting to further the demise of the Second Amendment. By emphasizing the 10th Amendment in an attempt to strengthen States Rights with special attention to the gun issue, the 9th Circuit seems to be saying that the country can no longer have both the 1oth Amendment and the 2nd Amendment at the same time, and that is is practical from their point of view that it is the Second Amendment that must go.
From the 9th Circuit Court?...no surprise here except for the ingenuity of methods to further the cause of deconstruction and chaos.
Keeping the Constitution as well as States Rights intact is of the greatest importance, especially with a POTUS and political party who do not like it as it has existed and does exist. The 9th Circuit is meddling once again in a way that will do the country no good 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.
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.