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 Court’s 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 ...
Thanks for your take on it El Gato. Sounds like the 14th needs to be gutted.
Kelo v. New London, although upholding the ability of a local government to maintain an abomination, also allowed many states to institute private property protections more stringent than the 5th Amendment. The existence of discretion in this trade-off between federalism and "equal protection" has made a joke of the SCOTUS.
Thank you for the additional comment Carry_Okie.
That sounded reasonable.
Ninth Circuit Rules 2nd Amendment Incorporated to States Monday April 20, 2009, 5:46 pm EDT
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 Court’s 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 possess firearms or ammunition on county property.
“The Heller ruling in 2008 was the first critical step toward full restoration of the individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms to its rightful position as a cornerstone of the Bill of Rights,” Gottlieb observed. “This victory in the Ninth Circuit not only reinforces the Heller ruling, it expands upon it.”
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 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
Please show me where, in this document, the main purpose of the Second Amendment is covered??
Please see my response in #64.
See pages 18, 22, 27, and 42.
What part of "here is what was in the article that was linked to the story" did you miss? I read the article linked to the story. That's what we do here - we read articles linked to FR and post our comments. So I read the article and posted my comment.
That is what you said. It doesn't actually reference the "article" from SAF but paraphrases a portion of the actual decision, from which it appears you made the assumption that defense against government tyranny was not addressed therein, when in fact it was.
One would think you'd be pleased to learn it was an aspect of the decision, but rather you argue about the content of an article you did not even mention in your original post.
If you have a problem with what SAF published in reference to this issue you should take it up with them.
The linked article I referred to was at the bottom of the posted article and was from Yahoo Finance. I have no issues with SAF, FR, or even Yahoo Finance, but I do have issues with you because I have repeatedly posted that what I read made no mention of the reference to the original justification for the Second Amendment.
You have repeatedly insisted that I didn’t read the decision so I must be ignorant. I even posted verbatim the article from Yahoo Finance and asked you to show me where, in that article, it made any reference to the Founder’s original intent. Rather than respond to my request, you, again, pointed out that I didn’t read the full decision and directed me to particular pages in the original decision which were not in the Yahoo Finance article.
So, you read the material at SAF, I read the article that was linked to the FR posting at Yahoo Finance. I am thrilled that the SCOTUS still acknowledges that the Founder’s original justification and intent was to provide the citizens a counterbalance against a strong central government. It’s comforting to know that, occasionally, the SCOTUS still provides passing acknowledgement of the Founder’s original intentions with the BOR, even though they don’t do it often enough.
The LSM certainly isn't going to bring up that aspect of the 2nd. regardless of it's importance. But it is a well documented matter of fact - and without that purpose being in the minds of the founders I doubt the amendment would be there - so the 9th. Circus was right to incorporate that into the decision.
I think of it as a much needed warning to the political class for a time to come when all bets are off, that they become subject to violent overthrow. Whether it's heeded as such by enough or any of them remains to be seen.
I’m pleased and shock.
Diarmuid was a founding Board member of Young Americans for Freedom back in 1960. Gottlieb was on the YAF Board aa few years later. Frank Donatelli, the new head of GOPAC was on the Board at the same time. I knew them all back in those days (Congressman Rohrbacker too!
Not too much. Perhaps a(nother) declaration that it means what it says.
No, not too much. Here's what I'm thinking - term limits; 1 term in the Senate, 2 in the House. Congressional payraises approved by . . . . . . . . . the TAXPAYERS who pay them. Repeal the 17th Amendment. All laws passed by Congress MUST have a link to their Constitutional authority and there must be a maximum limit to the number of active Federal laws on the books. Also, Congress CANNOT offload its legislative functions to agencies staffed by unelected bureaucrats. In addition, ALL tax increases and federal budgets MUST have the approval of the people who actually pay taxes (those who do not pay taxes don't get a vote, nor do they get federal handouts such as "tax credits", and "tax breaks"; retired persons/seniors are exempted). Congressional sessions shall be limited to no more than 6 months every two years, then they have to go home and live with the mess they made. If the President needs them back in session, he can call them into special session.
Other "tweaks" I would include are that ALL presidential candidates must prove to their respective political parties their eligibility to serve as president AND a copy of their certified birth certificate must be available online for ANYONE to view. In addition, the SCOTUS MUST be limited to ruling on cases in accordance with the Constitution, per their charter. Foreign law, judicial activism and legislating from the bench must be prohibted. Cases for which there is no Constitutional foundation must either be denied OR referred to the Congress to determine if a new law is required (see above restriction on the number of active laws). Federal judges may be appointed for a maximum of 10 years. SC justices ONLY can be reappointed for an additional 10 year term. The right of Initiative and Referendum AND the right of the people to recall ANY Congresscritter or President must be added to the Bill of Rights. Can you think of anything else?
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.