Posted on 03/29/2012 12:18:04 PM PDT by marktwain
BELLEVUE, WA – A federal district court judge in North Carolina has just struck down that state’s emergency power to impose a ban on firearms and ammunition outside the home during a declared emergency, ruling that the provision violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
The case, Bateman v. Purdue, was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, Grass Roots North Carolina FFE and three individual plaintiffs. Defendants in the case were Gov. Beverly Purdue and Reuben F. Young, secretary of the state’s Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, in their official capacities.
In his opinion, Judge Malcolm J. Howard, senior United States district judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina, wrote, “…the court finds that the statutes at issue here are subject to strict scrutiny…While the bans imposed pursuant to these statutes may be limited in duration, it cannot be overlooked that the statutes strip peaceable, law abiding citizens of the right to arm themselves in defense of hearth and home, striking at the very core of the Second Amendment.”
“When SAF attorney Alan Gura won the Heller case at the Supreme Court,” noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “the gun ban crowd said that we were a ‘one-trick-pony’ and that we would never knock out another gun law. Well, SAF has now knocked out gun laws in Maryland, Illinois and North Carolina.
“We filed this lawsuit on the day we won the McDonald case against Chicago,” he added, “extending the Second Amendment to all 50 states. This was part of our strategy of winning firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time.”
Gottlieb pointed to language in Judge Howard’s ruling that solidifies the Second Amendment’s reach outside the home. The judge noted that the Supreme Court in Heller noted that the right to keep and bear arms “was valued not only for preserving the militia, but ‘more important(ly) for self-defense and hunting.”
“Therefore,” Judge Malcolm wrote, “the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms ‘is not strictly limited to the home environment but extends in some form to wherever those activities or needs occur."
“Under the laws at issue here, citizens are prohibited from engaging, outside their home, in any activities secured by the Second Amendment,” Judge Malcolm wrote. They may not carry defensive weapons outside the home, hunt or engage in firearm related sporting activities. Additionally, although the statutes do not directly regulate the possession of firearms within the home, they effectively prohibit law abiding citizens from purchasing and transporting to their homes firearms and ammunition needed for self-defense. As such, these laws burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment.”
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
the court finds that the statutes at issue here are subject to strict scrutiny…While the bans imposed pursuant to these statutes may be limited in duration, it cannot be overlooked that the statutes strip peaceable, law abiding citizens of the right to arm themselves in defense of hearth and home, striking at the very core of the Second Amendment.”
From your post
The 2nd ammedment to the Federal constitution has no ligitimate baring on the State of North Carolina.
Maybe you should get ahold of that judge and correct him. I'm sure an armchir expert or your caliber would cause him to change his tune.
Yeah, she’s a piece-a-work.
Took 41 plane trips, donated by supporters while running for office, claimed she either overlooked or subordinate failed to report them.
One of her followers is going to fall on the sword for her.
She’s a whiny little b____ with a mouth like the Joker.
Had it not been for the Bush/Republican revulsion in 2008 she would never have been elected.
Wow! Thanks. I just joined SAF.
“
Maybe you should get ahold of that judge and correct him. I’m sure an armchir expert or your caliber would cause him to change his tune.”
The federal employee is just as much an “armchair expert” when it comes to the Federal Constitution as any american. To call them who are supposedly chained down by this same document more honest experts on the lawfully limits of their chains is no different than to call the top prisoner more authoritative regarding the terms of his imprisonment than his warranted.
I would whole heartily agree with this federal judge if and only if the 2nd amendment were illegitimately applicable to the States. Instead his eyes are in the wrong Constitution all together. For the law that chains down the government of North California for the protection North Carolinian is not written or kept in Washington but rather it is Written BY north Carolinian for the protection of North Carolinian from their Government.
That law, or contract as some like to call it is known by the title the Constitution of North Carolina. In that Constitution written and approved by the People of North Carolina is a clause almost a verbatim copy of the 2nd Amendment in Article 1 Section 30:
http://www.ncleg.net/Legislation/constitution/article1.html
Had this judge simply sited this relevant law rather than the irrelevant 2nd amazement to the FEDERAL constitution he would have made a near flawless argument in this regard.
So you see I am not disputing the limitations binding the Government of North Carolina, mearly where they come from and where they reside. The people of North Carolina have EVERY RIGHT to govern themselves in this and all other respects. It is after all THEIR state.
It is in fact the people of North Carolina not the several States that have declared their government incapable of robing them of their right to keep & bear arms. It is the people of North Carolina that justly control this & all other political issues internal & species to North Carolina.
“Yeah, she’s a piece-a-work.
Took 41 plane trips, donated by supporters while running for office, claimed she either overlooked or subordinate failed to report them.
One of her followers is going to fall on the sword for her.
She’s a whiny little b____ with a mouth like the Joker.
Had it not been for the Bush/Republican revulsion in 2008 she would never have been elected.”
I must admit my surprise that the people of North Carolina would find such a governor tolerable to their sensibilities.
Be that as it may, there is good evidence to indicate that the framer of the 14th Amendment intended that incorporation be the law of the land.
The following is copied from Wikipedia for its succinctness, but the content is easily verified from primary sources:
Rep. John Bingham, the principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, advocated that the Fourteenth applied the first eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights to the States. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently declined to interpret it that way. Until the 1947 case of Adamson v. California, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black argued in his dissent that the framers' intent should control the Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and he attached a lengthy appendix that quoted extensively from Bingham's congressional testimony. Although the Adamson Court declined to adopt Black's interpretation, the Court during the following twenty-five years employed a doctrine of selective incorporation that succeeded in extending to the States almost of all of the protections in the Bill of Rights, as well as other, unenumerated rights.
That indicates to me that the Constitution has been duly amended to make incorporation under the 14th Amendment the law of the land. As a constructionist, I find the framer's intent to be of primary interest. If Bingham intended incorporation and wrote the amendment for that purpose, then I must therefore believe the premise that incorporation is the duly ratified law of the land to be the correct interpretation.
As is the case in many another divided state, the liberal urban centers hold sway in such matters.
“”I must admit my surprise that the people of North Carolina would find such a governor tolerable to their sensibilities.”
As is the case in many another divided state, the liberal urban centers hold sway in such matters.”
Makes you morn the loss of your republican form of Government with the regionally Representative State Senate eh?
To me it leftist dominated urban centers makes me start to wonder if a nuclear war might have definite silver lining. lol
I am aware of the despotic insanity of the radical republican Rep. John Bingham. He is among the lead authors responsible for the destruction of our once free & republican government.
Whatever his intentions however that was not the intentions of the ratifying states, the ones that were not blackmailed into ratification, nor were his extreme views shared by most in Congress.
Rep. John Bingham was an evil man on the level with Linclin himself. He may still today in his little corner of Hell believe the Federal government has the right to impose its politicians arbitrary concept rights & obligation upon every member of the union, thus abolishing in practice the Federal constitution and federal system with it.
But we who have to live in the land still occupied by his empire cannot afford to tolerate such an imperial believe. To their magnanimous credit the first bunch of Federal employees in the Federal courts and most of the congressmen of the time recognized this fact.
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.