Skip to comments.Ninth Circuit Rules 2nd Amendment Incorporated to States
Posted on 04/20/2009 3:47:32 PM PDT by neverdem
BELLEVUE, Wash.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Second Amendment Foundation today applauded the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco for ruling that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states and local governments.
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.
Although the court found against the plaintiffs in the case of Nordyke v. King Russell and Sallie Nordyke, operators of a gun show in Alameda County, CA the court acknowledged that its earlier position that the Second Amendment protected only a collective right of states has been overruled by the Supreme Courts 2008 historic ruling in District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller. That was the case in which the high court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right to keep and bear arms.
This is a great victory for advancement of the fundamental individual right of American citizens to own firearms, said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. The Ninth Circuit panel has acknowledged that the Heller ruling abrogated its earlier position on the Second Amendment, and it further clarified that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment through the due process clause.
SAF attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued the Heller case before the Supreme Court in March 2008, filed an amicus brief in the Nordyke case. The Nordykes sued when Alameda County banned gun shows at the county fairgrounds by making it illegal to bring or...
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
The *NINTH* Circuit? Pinch me...
That’s exactly what I thought!
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!
Yeah...terrorists. That's the ticket. That's why the framers put in that amendment....to guard against...terrorists. Right.
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!
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.
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?
Well what ya waiting for. Go get it now. The pot is simmering. None to blame if u don’t act now.
Awesome! Thanks for posting this!
Sorry, I’m suspicious.
Is this a “See! We don’t want to TAKE your guns! Now go register them!” moment??
There seems to be a bit of wiggle room in the word "lawfully", but perhaps I'm just paranoid of the 9th Circus.
Even though it is terribly date now, every now and again I like to pull out Red Dawn.
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.
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. 28But why should a Federal judge cars about the Federalist Papers? That would be way too restrictive on his power.
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.
Really - the 9th circuit? OMG - I have lived long enough to die!
>>There seems to be a bit of wiggle room in the word “lawfully”, but perhaps I’m just paranoid of the 9th Circus.<<
There are a lot of reasons for the word “lawfully”. For one thing, removing that specific would imply that even those that are “unlawfully” armed are included in the spirit of the comment. It is the way lawyers talk: try to be specific.
Supervisor Mary King didn't want this result, IMHO.
There's nothing from Alan Gura so far.
freedomwarrior998, thanks for the original thread & pdf link!