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

To: btcusn
Boy is Obama going to be pissed!

This just gets better the more I think about it.

28 posted on 04/20/2009 4:28:33 PM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: FormerLib
Quoting from NORDYKE v. KING Cal 9th US Courts

GOULD, Circuit Judge, concurring:

I concur in Judge O’Scannlain’s opinion but write to elaborate my view of the policies underlying the selective incorporation decision.

First, as Judge O’Scannlain has aptly explained, the rights secured by the Second Amendment are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and “necessary to the Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty.” The salient policies underlying the protection of the right to bear arms are of inestimable importance. The right to bear arms is a bulwark against external invasion. We should not be overconfident that oceans on our east and west coasts alone can preserve security. We recently saw in the case of the terrorist attack on Mumbai that terrorists may enter a country covertly by ocean routes, landing in small craft and then assembling to wreak havoc. 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.

Second, the right to bear arms is a protection against the possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with individual diligence.

Third, while the Second Amendment thus stands as a protection against both external threat and internal tyranny, the recognition of the individual’s right in the Second Amendment, and its incorporation by the Due Process Clause against the states, is not inconsistent with the reasonable regulation of weaponry. All weapons are not “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment, so, for example, no individual could sensibly argue that the Second Amendment gives them a right to have nuclear weapons or chemical weapons in their home for self-defense. Also, important governmental interests will justify reasonable regulation of rifles and handguns, and the problem for our courts will be to define, in the context of particular regulation by the states and municipalities, what is reasonable and permissible and what is unreasonable and offensive to the Second Amendment.


I tend to agree with Judge Gould on both his first and second reasons for concurring with judge O'Scannlains opinion. After all, who can argue that having an armed population of citizens is not a good defense against both foreign and domestic enemies. It is his third reason that bothers me.

Being of the independent type, I have to question how any possible important governmental interests could ever trump "Shall Not be Infringed".

40 posted on 04/20/2009 5:14:05 PM PDT by An Old Man (Use it up, Wear it out, Make it do, or Do without.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

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