Skip to comments.NRA Appeals Seventh Circuit Ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court
Posted on 06/04/2009 5:59:45 AM PDT by epow
On Wednesday, June 3, the National Rifle Association filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of NRA v. Chicago. The NRA strongly disagrees with yesterday's decision issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments
And so it begins.
The NRA is calling for judicial legislation. Shameful.
What, you think state and local government should be able to ban guns?
Thats odd, it seems like they think the first amendment and it’s “no establishment of religion” clause, sure as hell applies to cities and states.
And it seems like 5th amendment cases are routinely enforced against municipal and state police departments.
Invalidating state laws that run afoul of the US Constitution (what’s ir actually says, not some imagined interpretation) is not judicial legislation. It’s what the courts are actually supposed to do.
Huh? Do you think that state and local governments should be able to say the 2nd amendment is void in the state/city?
That’s the puzzler on this ruling. If something is a constitutional right, then it cannot be abridged by the states.
The abortion crowd use that argument (successfully in most courts) all the time since Roe v. Wade essentially established abortion as a constitutional right.
Pretending that the 2nd Amendment was a restriction on the states
This after the US Supreme Court Heller decision, unfreakinbelievable!
The USSC needs to not only reverse this decision, it needs to come down hard on the 7th circuit judges who ignored their decision to drive this point home to the hardest heads in the federal and state judiciary, the 2nd protects the people from ALL governments at EVERY level that try to disarm them.
“Pretending that the 2nd Amendment was a restriction on the states”
yeah, that’d be like arguing that the 1st amendment restricted a states right to set up an offical church, or outlaw FR in that state.
I didn't see a sarcasm tag. Do you truly consider upholding the explicit Constitutional language of "shall not be infringed" to be judicial legislation?
The District of Columbia is not a state.
It was. Note the 1st says "Congress shall make no law", but the 2nd says "the right of the people shall not be infringed". It doesn't say just by Congress, but by anybody. That's because the Federal government needed to ensure that the people would be armed for the defense of the country. By ratifying it, the states agreed not to disarm the people.
Pretending that the 2nd Amendment was a restriction on the states
One more reason for all State Constitutions to protect the peoples right to keep and bear arms....
It didn't. The court "discovered" that restriction in the 14th Amendment. Leftists have little regard for original intent.
To overturn, does the USSC have to accept and argue a whole new case? Isn’t there a method where they can use Heller to quickly shoot this down?
Whose side are you on? You actually believe that the states can pick and choose which constitutional rights to honor.
The Bill of Rights is a set of declaratory restrictions on the powers granted to the federal government by the states.
Unlike some amendments within the bill of rights, the 2nd amendment does not contain the words "Congress" or any other language limiting its effectivity to the federal government. So while the courts have used the 14th amendment to incorporate other restrictions against the federal government onto the states, such incorporation of the 2nd amendment is not even necessary. What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is ambiguous to you?
The whole POINT of Heller is that DC was not giving citizens a constitutional right that **states** had to honor. It wasnt to grant DC some unique gun rights that don’t apply to states. I think you are 180 degrees off on this one.
some states DID have a “state religion”.
However, the first specifically states, wrt state religion, that CONGRESS shall establish no religion.
So I don’t think that’s a valid analog.
Apparently they're not the only ones.
That is absolute nonsense. Go read (among others) the Tenth Amendment. I believe it also says something about powers reserved to “the people”.
Shall not be infringed by the federal government. Leftist hate original intent.
Actually, what is shameful it the way the courts dance around the obvious intent of the Framers. It is obvious that the people who wrote "Congress shall make no law" in the first Amendment intended the first Amendment restrictions to apply only to the Federal government; and when they left that phrase out of the other Amendments restrictive on government power, they intended the restrictions to apply to the Federal Government and to the States as well. Marshall and Baron notwithstanding, it is pretty absurd to suggest that the various restrictions on how persons charged with a crime can be treated applied only to the Federal Government when the only Federal crime was treason and all those who actually were indicted were charged with violating State laws.
You are obviously up to something a little *unusual* here. You don’t think 2nd amendment applies to the States,,and you think governments clearly had a right to set an official religion,, until someone looked in the 14th amendment, and irrationally “found” that government can’t organize an official church.
You mystify me.
Exactly. The leftists and their useful idiots would have those historic protections replaced by ad hoc legislation from the federal bench.
leaves no room for your average inferiority laden narcissistic leftist to “show his brilliance”.
In order to do that, you must provide “new insight”, IE, your own whims instead of original intent.
It did, but it also limited the states in some cases. The 2nd states that a militia is necesarry for a free state. If states disarmed the people, there could be no militia. I defy you to show me any evidence that the founding fathers thought the states had that power.
The Constitution and the Framers. In others words, the opposite of you.
You remind me of a kid I grew up with. He would constantly annoy other kids and get beaten up. I asked him why he did it, and he told me it was the only way to get attention.
Or the word "states."
Right on !
Then you argue that 2nd amendment is a “collective right”. It cannot be otherwise, if you argue that a state can pass a law that has the exact opposite effect. This argument means a citizen has no enforceable 2nd amendment right except on federal property.
If the 2nd only restricts the federal government from disarming state militias as the 7th's decision implies, then the Heller decision wouldn't have nullified the local D.C. government's handgun ban. The 7th circuit's decision is itself a violation of a right that was just upheld by the highest court in the land last year. As I said before, unbelievable!
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Constitution did NOT delegate the traditional state police powers over firearms to the federal government. Now we have various Constitution haters on these threads calling for the federal judiciary to assume those states' police powers for itself.
Which you cannot refute, or even address.
Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the State governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.
Ok, then to clarify, why don’t you tell us who you think the 2nd amendment *does* apply to, only to DC? You say no state is required to honor it, so who is controlled by the 2nd? Im seriously asking, you have completely lost me.
In theory, the Framers did. The Bill of Rights was not a dictate to the states, but rather a limit on the new federal government. Of course, while the states were free to do as they pleased, the Framers expected that they would already have those protections in place. It was the federal government which was the Framers feared would take away our God-given rights.
What???? I ain't no constitutional scholar but did the SCOTUS recently rule *exactly* the opposite in the Heller case?
Lawyers...enlighten me here.
I hope SCOTUS denies cert. The NRA has been pathetic in educating the public about what the Presser and Miller cases stand for, and has been actively enabling the building of second amendment jurisprudence on a foundation of lies.
Presser argued that he didn't need a parade permit for an armed military parade on public property. He claimed he didn't need a permit because the 2nd amendment protects the right to conduct armed military parades on public property. The Supreme Court said that states can require parade permits as a matter of keeping public order - this isn't a 1st or 2nd amendment issue. If it was a case about RKBA, says SCOTUS, in Presser, the states may NOT prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, and that's the case even if the 2nd amendment did not exist.
What does the NRA say the Presser case propounds? That the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the states. But, says the NRA, that notion is antiquated. What a pathetically flaccid argument.
The Miller case stands for the proposition that the government may NOT prohibit keep and bear for military arms; in comes the Heller Court, asserting the exact opposite as the holding in Miller (Miller was convicted, the majority says -- FALSE), and the NRA goes "Woo Hoo, We win!"
The Heller case is good law, like Dred Scot is good law. It's there, it's on the books, and it is the law. But it's law built on compound lies, enabled by the NRA.
Which the lovers of judicial legislation must do, because they cannot address the historical facts.
"But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments..."
Because I don't share your love of centralized power and rule from the bench?
Did you find the words "federal government" somewhere in the hidden penumbras? Read it again: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The states asserted that this right was reserved to the people, not to the states to then allocate out to the people as they see fit.