Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Second Amendment Rights in the Wild West
Townhall ^ | April 24, 2009 | Meredith Turney

Posted on 04/25/2009 10:49:15 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

It may seem utterly impossible, but a fairly decent ruling regarding the Second Amendment came from a California court this week. The San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals actually ruled that private citizens can challenge state and local gun laws under the Second Amendment.

Jokingly referred to as the Ninth “Circus” Court of Appeals for its historically horrendous opinions (it’s one of the most overturned appeals court in the nation), it is stunning to read the majority opinions in the case, Nordyke v. King. The majority opinions read more like a historical chronology of gun rights produced by the National Rifle Association than a decision from a decidedly liberal court.

Tracing the fundamental right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms, from William Blackstone through current law, the court found:

“…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.”

The Ninth Circuit ruling relied heavily on District of Columbia v. Heller, once again affirming the victory for Second Amendment rights in last year’s landmark Supreme Court ruling.

The Nordyke case was a lawsuit filed by gun show promoters challenging the constitutionality of an Alameda County ordinance prohibiting gun shows on county property, including the local fairgrounds. The overall ruling of the court was not a victory for the gun show operators. The court found that “the Ordinance before us…does not directly impede the efficacy of self-defense or limit self-defense in the home. Rather, it regulates gun possession in public places that are County property.”

Under the historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court allowed that laws may proscribe gun possession in “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings and laws may regulate “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” The Ninth Circuit interpreted this “sensitive places” exception to apply to local government venues where crowds congregate. One could argue that this exception and its interpretation grant too much power to local governments in controlling gun sales, but the fact that the rest of the opinion affirms individuals’ rights to bear arms is significant for gun-control crazy California.

In a state where the judiciary regularly oversteps its constitutional boundaries to advance “progressive” political agendas, it’s remarkable the judiciary acknowledges the necessity of firearms to protect the populace not just from outside threats, but from a tyrannical government:

“While the generation of 1789 envisioned the right [to keep and bear arms] as a component of local resistance to centralized tyranny, whether British or federal, the generation of 1868 envisioned the right as safeguard to protect individuals from oppressive or indifferent local governments. But though the source of the threat may have migrated, the antidote remained the same: the individual right to keep and bear arms, a recourse for ‘when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.’”

State lawmakers are now in discord with their judicial counterparts. The same day the Ninth Circuit ruling was handed down, State Assemblyman Kevin DeLeon (D-Los Angeles) was touting his bill that will place severe restrictions on ammunition purchases in California. Stores selling ammunition will, among other mandates, be required to receive a license from the Department of Justice and record the names, addresses and thumbprints of ammunition purchasers.

Claiming his intention is to curtail gun violence, DeLeon said, “The real oxygen that fuels gun violence is the bullets themselves.” But Assemblyman DeLeon overlooks the fact that bullets are also necessary to defend oneself against those who illegally obtain their ammunition—despite countless gun laws.

Assemblyman DeLeon and his peers in the California legislature should read the Nordyke case to understand why gun ownership is necessary: “…the [Second Amendment] 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.”

According to the Ninth Circuit, “Second Amendment law remains in its infancy.” Perhaps to liberal thinkers Second Amendment law is a nascent, “evolving” standard. But to those who understand our nation’s history and the importance of an armed citizenry, the right to self defense is a truth we hold to be self evident.

“Have no fear of any man, no matter what his size. When danger threatens call on me, and I will equalize.”


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; ammunition; banglist; bloat; democrats; ninthcircuit; scotus
I think I just saw a pig fly by my window...
1 posted on 04/25/2009 10:49:15 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I think I saw one too!


2 posted on 04/25/2009 10:52:42 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Proud charter member of Napolitano's rightwing, nutcase American, watch list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
avian-swine...???

lots of that goin around lately...

3 posted on 04/25/2009 11:08:26 PM PDT by Gilbo_3 ("JesusChrist 08"...Trust in the Lord......=...LiveFReeOr Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gilbo_3

So when do we (can we ?) file suit against the Brady’s for violating our rights with their propaganda ?


4 posted on 04/25/2009 11:43:26 PM PDT by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Squantos; Gilbo_3; FlingWingFlyer; 2ndDivisionVet

You don’t get it.

The 9th decided that as long as a law does not restrict your ability to posess and defend your home with a firearm, it is not unconstitutional.

They ruled, in this case, that public places, like fairgrounds, can be ruled “off-limits” to firearm owners.

Heller opened the door for owning/posessing a narrow definition of firearms in your home ONLY. Liberals will decide that anywhere outside your home is prohibited territory (I’m sure they will be magnanimous and allow you to carry your firearm to the range for practice).


5 posted on 04/26/2009 3:42:18 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
That was not the way I read it. The 9th did say that Heller said that the need for self defense was most acute in the home, but they never said the RKBA applied in the home only.

They ruled, in this case, that public places, like fairgrounds, can be ruled “off-limits” to firearm owners.

That's sort of true, but only applied to firearms owners who are actually carrying their guns, not all firearms owners. And that ruling makes sense in sensitive places like a court house.

However, the 9th also pointed out how the statute can now be attacked as being overly broad:

The Nordykes argue that the Ordinance is overbroad because it covers more than such sensitive places. They list the areas covered: “open space venues, such as County-owned parks, recreational areas, historic sites, parking lots of public buildings . . . and the County fairgrounds.” The only one of these that seems odd as a “sensitive place” is parking lots.

Odd indeed.
6 posted on 04/26/2009 6:10:51 AM PDT by publiusF27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: publiusF27
The Nordykes argue that the Ordinance is overbroad because it covers more than such sensitive places.

And the 9th said it is not overbroad because it does not restrict firearms in the home.

Heller was wriiten in such a way, and with such comments, as to define the types of firearms allowed (by later courts) and where such posession may take place (forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings).

Therefore, you are going to have later courts define "ordinary weapons" and define what is a "sensitive place"...which is exactly what the 9th did.

7 posted on 04/26/2009 6:31:10 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Glocks, Sigs, S&W, Colt, AK's, SKSs, AR-15s and unlimited ammunition for them.


8 posted on 04/26/2009 6:37:25 AM PDT by Condor51 (The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
And the 9th said it is not overbroad because it does not restrict firearms in the home.

No, they didn't. Produce a quotation from the opinion that says that the 2A can only apply in the home. They said that Heller said the need for 2A protection was especially acute in the home, but they twice indicated that it was the "efficacy of self defense" that was a 2A issue.

Next, the Court connected the statute’s operation to the conduct the Second Amendment protects: “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.” Id. It was thus the statute’s burdens on effective self-defense that implicated the Second Amendment.

They go on to cite the particulars of the Heller case, which involved firearms in the home, but the fact that Heller made the possession of firearms in the home a 2A protected right does not mean that the right can only exist in the home, and I did not see where the 9th said any such thing.
9 posted on 04/26/2009 6:51:44 AM PDT by publiusF27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: publiusF27
They said that Heller said the need for 2A protection was especially acute in the home, but they twice indicated that it was the "efficacy of self defense" that was a 2A issue.

And what is stopping liberal court to rule that the home will be the only place not considered "sensitive"?

The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.”

But what did DC do? They disallowed Heller's semi-automatic handgun and said they would only allow revolvers to be posessed in the home.

You have to understand how liberals will twist this or complacency on our side will result in a gutted 2A.

10 posted on 04/26/2009 7:25:29 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; wku man; SLB; ..
Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!
11 posted on 04/26/2009 7:36:06 AM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
And what is stopping liberal court to rule that the home will be the only place not considered "sensitive"?

The same thing that is stopping a Constitutional Convention from being called to rescind the 2nd amendment, I suppose. But in your post number 5, you said we have already reached the point where the home is the only protected place, and we have not. You said:

The 9th decided that as long as a law does not restrict your ability to posess and defend your home with a firearm, it is not unconstitutional.

They did not say that. They said that the county could restrict guns in sensitive places, and went on to say that a fairgrounds is such a place, but also questioned whether a parking lot is such a place. Questioning whether a parking lot is a "sensitive place" is a long way from saying that the home is the only place that is not sensitive.
12 posted on 04/26/2009 8:09:43 AM PDT by publiusF27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: publiusF27
Questioning whether a parking lot is a "sensitive place" is a long way from saying that the home is the only place that is not sensitive.

I am not going to argue with someone on my side over semantics.

My point is that you can see where the liberal courts are taking this and while we are not there yet, the stage is being set.

13 posted on 04/26/2009 8:24:27 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
You don’t get it.

The 9th decided that as long as a law does not restrict your ability to posess and defend your home with a firearm, it is not unconstitutional.

They ruled, in this case, that public places, like fairgrounds, can be ruled “off-limits” to firearm owners.

Heller opened the door for owning/posessing a narrow definition of firearms in your home ONLY. Liberals will decide that anywhere outside your home is prohibited territory (I’m sure they will be magnanimous and allow you to carry your firearm to the range for practice).

I think this is a misconception. SCOTUS didn't rule that RKBA only applied to the home. They narrowly ruled on Heller's challenge which specifically was against a law that effectively infringed or banned firearms in the home. Heller didn't challenge his inability to carry outside the home and SCOTUS didn't rule on such.

While Nordyke noted the Heller ruling, it too didn't explicitly limit restrict RKBA outside the home, but rather on public property, and not all public property at that.

14 posted on 04/26/2009 8:30:20 AM PDT by umgud (I'm really happy I wasn't aborted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: umgud
While Nordyke noted the Heller ruling, it too didn't explicitly limit restrict RKBA outside the home, but rather on public property, and not all public property at that.

But SCOTUS left open everywhere but the home in its ruling, leaving it to other courts to define 'sensitive' areas. The 9th cut the places you can carry greatly without special notice to 'sensitive' areas.

How is a fairground 'sensitive'? If that can be ruled off-limits, so can anywhere.

15 posted on 04/26/2009 8:36:44 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

To that extent, I agree with you. The percieved versus the true legal effect will have the grabbers trying to infringe on percieved beliefs. It will also put us in a position to challenge them.


16 posted on 04/26/2009 8:41:02 AM PDT by umgud (I'm really happy I wasn't aborted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
My point is that you can see where the liberal courts are taking this and while we are not there yet, the stage is being set.

On that we can agree, but making the argument that a fundamental civil right ends at your doorstep will be difficult for the other side, if not impossible. It will be interesting if we get a case of government property that is also a home (public housing).
17 posted on 04/26/2009 8:55:57 AM PDT by publiusF27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: publiusF27
It will be interesting if we get a case of government property that is also a home (public housing).

The NRA just won on this point against the San Francisco Public Housin Authority that wanted to ban firearms in public housing.

Of course, it never went to court.

18 posted on 04/26/2009 9:31:28 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
“While the generation of 1789 envisioned the right [to keep and bear arms] as a component of local resistance to centralized tyranny, whether British or federal, the generation of 1868 envisioned the right as safeguard to protect individuals from oppressive or indifferent local governments. But though the source of the threat may have migrated, the antidote remained the same: the individual right to keep and bear arms, a recourse for ‘when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.’”

The Ninth Circus said that?? I was impressed enough that they recognized individuals right to armed self defense, but this is truly jaw dropping. Has somebody been slipping something into their water?

19 posted on 04/26/2009 10:47:36 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
the individual right to keep and bear arms, a recourse for ‘when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.’”

Yup, they pass laws that do not curtail crime but make guns and ammo more difficult to possess. These 'sanctions' to 'restrain' violence have no effect on violence and in fact, place innocents in greater jeopardy.

When oh when, will our 'betters' ever concede that the individual's right to defend his or herself is the single greatest deterrent to 'violence' and 'oppression'? This moment of clarity can't come too soon.

20 posted on 04/26/2009 5:29:27 PM PDT by budwiesest (Respect my rights or get off the bench.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
leaving it to other courts to define 'sensitive' areas.

To a reasonable person, such areas might include those where 'conflict' may be reasonably anticipated such as: Court rooms, sporting events (sadly), legislative houses, etc. Certainly parking lots would not make the list, nor would churches, schools, restaurants, or bars.

21 posted on 04/26/2009 7:29:01 PM PDT by budwiesest (Respect my rights or get off the bench.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: budwiesest
To a reasonable person, such areas might include those where 'conflict' may be reasonably anticipated such as: Court rooms, sporting events (sadly), legislative houses, etc. Certainly parking lots would not make the list, nor would churches, schools, restaurants, or bars.

Road rage is a major problem. Go to Google News and type in road rage. There are pages of current news stories about it.

Following your logic, firearms should be banned in automobiles due to the 'conflict' that may be anticipated.

Sorry, but your reasoning feeds into the liberal mindset that firearm owners are a hair away from snapping and murdering thousands.

22 posted on 04/27/2009 4:12:39 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

bump


23 posted on 04/27/2009 11:41:24 AM PDT by Centurion2000 (We either Free America ourselves, or it is midnight for humanity for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
I did an honest double take when I first saw this story. But then again, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

24 posted on 04/27/2009 6:45:40 PM PDT by wku man (Who says conservatives don't rock? Go to www.myspace.com/rockfromtheright)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson