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
No rational human could come to such a conclusion. The Supreme Court demolished your absurd contention 176 years ago:
Had the people of the several States, or any of them, required changes in their Constitutions, had they required additional safeguards to liberty from the apprehended encroachments of their particular governments, the remedy was in their own hands, and could have been applied by themselves. A convention could have been assembled by the discontented State, and the required improvements could have been made by itself. The unwieldy and cumbrous machinery of procuring a recommendation from two-thirds of Congress and the assent of three-fourths of their sister States could never have occurred to any human being as a mode of doing that which might be effected by the State itself.
2nd Circuit, in Bach v Pataki: "Presser stands for the proposition that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, whatever else its nature, is a right only against the federal government, not against the states."
Don't those two opinions conflict with one another? Presser says in effect that the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms whether or not the 2nd restricts the states, yet the 2nd Circuit recently said that the states can impose a gun ban on it's people precisely because the 2nd doesn't apply to states. IOW the 2nd circuit cited the same reason why the states CAN restrict the right to keep and bear arms that the 19th century USSC gave for saying that the states CAN'T restrict that right. Could it be the reason why they don't agree is that Presser was decided in the 19th century before the judiciary became hostile to the right to keep and bear arms, and the Bach v Pataki decision was rendered earlier this year by a court that is obviously predisposed to deny the people that right? The Supremes need to get this straightened out ASAP and end the argument once and for all. Although, it seem that no right is guaranteed once and for all if it isn't popular with the current elitist way of thinking.
It is the statists like yourself that want to insert an exception clause that reserves the power to the states to infringe a right of the people that is specifically enumerated as a right of the people.
But congratulations on being the first person ever to refer to me as a leftist, and for doing so on the basis that I read the words "shall not be infringed" to mean "shall not be infringed" rather than "shall not be infringed except at the discretion of the states".
The states DELEGATED a portion of their powers to the federal government. They did not use the Bill of Rights as a secret modification of their state constitutions, the dishonest and irrational rantings of Constitution haters such as yourself notwithstanding.
Could I ask a simple question: IF the Constitution and the bill of rights didn’t apply to the States – especially the 2nd amendment – then what was the point of the whole exercise anyway?
The original intent may have been to restrict the Federal government, but the 14th Amendment now applies the 2nd to the States and local governments. The Constitution must be read in its entirety. You cannot ignore subsequent amendments when interpreting a clause of the original text or an earlier amendment.
For better or worse, the 14th Amendment has diminished the power of the States and local governments.
You noticed that? ROTFL. Yeah, they conflict all right. This very decision (Bach v. Pataki) was presented to SCOTUS for its consideration. Result? Cert. denied.
SCOTUS is not offended when the Circuits misread and misapply gun law. They sat idly by for 70 years while Circuit Courts turned Miller and Presser upside down. Then, when SCOTUS took up Heller's case, it turned it's own precedent, Miller, upside down.
And the NRA said "Whoopie! We won!"
Fargin' losers. They aren't even pissed off enough to educate the public about the legal travesty. They are playing footsie with an utterly corrupt federal court system; and saying "Thank you sir, may I have another."
Not yet. That will require a bit more judicial legislation.
Again:
"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."
The 7th Circuit was supposed to be the one to apply Heller to this case. Since they denied the applicability, and there is another Circuit that says different, it must be resolved by the Supremes.
What part of “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” don’t you understand?
Is the 2nd Amendment a "privilege" of "citizens of the United States"? Or an "immunity"? You forgot to say.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.which has been incorporated in subsequent decisions as meaning the Bill of Rights. This throws the 176-year-old decision out the window. It is as dead as "Dred Scott v Sandford"
Wouldn’t a local government be able to infringe on the rights of a citizen as easily as a national government?
Oppression can come from all levels of government.
The 9th Circuit is entertaining rehearing Nordyke, and may well excise the portion of the opinion that found incorporation. In any event, that section of the opinion is not necessary to reach the result (it is pure dicta), so the split doesn't cause disparate results between the Circuits.
SCOTUS would be well within its discretion to deny cert to the Maloney/Chicago cases.
And yet, that doesn't change the meaning of the words as written. Well, I guess actually it does if you subscribe to the idea that the court has the power to state that even though the Constitution clearly states this in unequivocably plain language, no rational human could possibly interpret those words to mean what they say, so this body decrees that those specifically chosen and clear words really mean something else. I understand now. An interpretation of the black and white words to mean what they say is judicial activism; reading those words to mean something else based on the enlightened opinion from 176 years ago determining that it just wouldn't make sense for the intent to really be what the clearly stated words mean is strict construction of original intent. Thanks for clearing that up.
The judicial legislation modifying the Constitution and incorporating the Bill of Rights against the states has not yet been applied to the Second Amendment. You Constitution haters will have to wait a bit longer.
Correct. The RKBA is one of the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, and any honest and neutral court would realize that and enforce it against the states and local governments. Our problem isn't that there is no Constitutionally created RKBA, our problem is that our liberal courts refuse to acknowledge and protect a natural, unalienable right that the founders recognized as such.
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.