bob Posted April 20, 2009 at 05:51 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 05:51 PM We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted April 20, 2009 at 05:59 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 05:59 PM We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments. Links!!! WE need links!!! AB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:03 PM Author Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:03 PM http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opin.../20/0715763.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:05 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:05 PM Oh .... tell me you're not kidding!! The ninth federal circuit court of appeals incorporated the second amendment!!?!! WOOO HOOOO! Now, to read the decision! THANK YOU for posting this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:11 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:11 PM Oh .... tell me you're not kidding!! The ninth federal circuit court of appeals incorporated the second amendment!!?!! WOOO HOOOO! Now, to read the decision! THANK YOU for posting this! GF that quote comes from page 4496. please tell me it says what I think it says!! AB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:14 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:14 PM Here I thought it was a joke!! OH SWEET LADY JUSTICE!! TELL US IT'S TRUE!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:15 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:15 PM A couple Volokh.com postings on this:http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_04...html#1240247034 http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_04...html#1240249775 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Guardian Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:16 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:16 PM *looks at calendar* National Marijuana Day, 9th circuit = jurisdiction over California... are we sure this isn't a joke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:20 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:20 PM Oh .... tell me you're not kidding!! The ninth federal circuit court of appeals incorporated the second amendment!!?!! WOOO HOOOO! Now, to read the decision! THANK YOU for posting this! GF that quote comes from page 4496. please tell me it says what I think it says!! AB To which quote do you refer? This is from page 4496 (emphases mine ... ah heck, it's ALL worth emphasizing): [12] We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the “true palladium of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited.17 We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:21 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:21 PM Oh damn ... I just thought of the Brady's. Poor, poor Brady's ... This is a good day indeed. SG ... while I agree that one has a right to marijuana, and that right is important, one's right to arms is vastly more so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:25 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:25 PM Oh damn ... I just thought of the Brady's. Poor, poor Brady's ... This is a good day indeed. SG ... while I agree that one has a right to marijuana, and that right is important, one's right to arms is vastly more so. Perhaps Brady's will argue that the 9th Circuit panel was celebrating "420" and high when the wrote the opinion...at least I think that is SG's concern... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:27 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:27 PM Oh .... tell me you're not kidding!! The ninth federal circuit court of appeals incorporated the second amendment!!?!! WOOO HOOOO! Now, to read the decision! THANK YOU for posting this! GF that quote comes from page 4496. please tell me it says what I think it says!! AB To which quote do you refer? This is from page 4496 (emphases mine ... ah heck, it's ALL worth emphasizing): [12] We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the "true palladium of liberty." Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited.17 We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.18 GF, I was referring to the bit that the Bob posted, line number 18 of your post. Looks like they found for incorporation, but that the local govt could control against bearing arms on their property. Oh heck, quit reading my drivel and read the opinion! oh Happy Day!!! AB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:30 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:30 PM Here I thought it was a joke!! OH SWEET LADY JUSTICE!! TELL US IT'S TRUE!!! It's a great......Holy $hit I cannot......This is sooooooo........HOLY CARP!!! I'M SPEECHLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND i CAN'T TYPE EITHER!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:30 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:30 PM So a bunch of western states join DC in having a meaningful Second Amendment. There exists now a significant circuit split with respect to incorporation of 2A against the states...9th versus 7th (ours). Please tell me someone will appeal this to SCOTUS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Guardian Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:31 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:31 PM Perhaps Brady's will argue that the 9th Circuit panel was celebrating "420" and high when the wrote the opinion...at least I think that is SG's concern... If this isn't the work of some cruel hoax, then that was my next theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Gwinn Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:38 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:38 PM Correct me if I'm wrong: this means that in the 9th Circuit, federal courts are bound to consider the 2nd incorporated. It doesn't do that for the rest of us, but it does mean that if the 7th Circuit rules against us in the Chicago lawsuits, there'll be a conflict between two circuits on the question and the SCOTUS will almost have to grant cert in one case or the other. Is that about right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45superman Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:44 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:44 PM Correct me if I'm wrong: this means that in the 9th Circuit, federal courts are bound to consider the 2nd incorporated. It doesn't do that for the rest of us, but it does mean that if the 7th Circuit rules against us in the Chicago lawsuits, there'll be a conflict between two circuits on the question and the SCOTUS will almost have to grant cert in one case or the other. Is that about right?That would be my (admittedly shaky) understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:45 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:45 PM HOLY CARP!!! I'M SPEECHLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I've done a lot of fishing, but I've NEVER seen a Holy Carp!!! AB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:52 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:52 PM HOLY CARP!!! I'M SPEECHLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I've done a lot of fishing, but I've NEVER seen a Holy Carp!!! AB Blessed are they who ask in the name of the Father Carp ... http://www.383ftp.com/Pics/HolyCarp.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylok Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:52 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:52 PM What's the verdict, is this a hoax or is what we think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:54 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:54 PM HOLY CARP!!! I'M SPEECHLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I've done a lot of fishing, but I've NEVER seen a Holy Carp!!! AB Blessed are they who ask in the name of the Father Carp ... http://www.383ftp.com/Pics/HolyCarp.jpg I was so excited that I was having a hard time typing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:55 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:55 PM Correct me if I'm wrong: this means that in the 9th Circuit, federal courts are bound to consider the 2nd incorporated. It doesn't do that for the rest of us, but it does mean that if the 7th Circuit rules against us in the Chicago lawsuits, there'll be a conflict between two circuits on the question and the SCOTUS will almost have to grant cert in one case or the other. Is that about right? There is already conflict. The 7th circuit ruled that the 2A did not apply to states in Quilici. The 2nd circuit recently also ruled against incorporation. Now the 9th has come out in favor. Circuit splits mean Supreme Court certs. So yes, in the 9th circuit, the 2A is incorporated. But I don't think it will take "effect" until the appeals process is over. That's an interesting twist here, because Alameda county "won" the case against the Nordykes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:55 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 06:55 PM A quick read of this did What I thought possible. Gain incorporation but deny the "right" to a gun show on public property. It also uses the concept of ordered liberty to justify the incorporation through the due process clause, something I would say is at the heart of Chicago's brief against incorporation. Chicago must now be scratching their head. Question is does it get applealed up? If it sits, and the 7th goes the other way, conflicting opinions make ripe for SCOTUS cert. The concurring opinion is insightfull but goes just to where we thought we would land with "resonable regualtion" The 9th feels banning guns from government property is reasonsable. We'll see what the 7th says, as it is more in line with Heller's issues. It may get to the registration issues and start us down that path of how far they can go. All in all, I would say we are better off today that we were yesterday. Some will complain about Heller not going far eneough and that they will try to regulate guns any way they can to get at us. They already do and we have been fighting that fight for a long time now. And it's our job to beat them back legislatively first and in the courts if need be. I will incorporate part of the ruling in to my analsys of the Chicago brief as I work on it this week from springfield. todd p.s. this view of banning guns on government property should give pause to 2257. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravyboy77 Posted April 20, 2009 at 07:03 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 07:03 PM Holy $hit..........I thought this was a joke at first. This is awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted April 20, 2009 at 07:04 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 07:04 PM p.s. this view of banning guns on government property should give pause to 2257. Perhaps it should. If governments can ban all guns on government property, there would be a lot of places in which your rights were infringed ... especially out west with the massive acreages of federal and state lands. No ... I think the banning of a gun show might be viewed a little differently than the banning of the mere right to bear arms for self-protection. I would confidently say that such a ban will not pass muster. I have to read this opinion. But what this does is open the door to tons and tons of arguments on these issues. Damned lawyers ... they have enough work already (no offense to any lawyers here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilphil Posted April 20, 2009 at 07:10 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 07:10 PM I wonder how the MSM is going to handle reporting this? My guess is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylok Posted April 20, 2009 at 07:12 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 07:12 PM "Damned lawyers ... they have enough work already (no offense to any lawyers here)." Yes and I would like for them to come to some profound and effective conclusion before heck begins to freeze over Sorry, I haven't had my afternoon dose of meds yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted April 20, 2009 at 07:13 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 07:13 PM I wonder how the MSM is going to handle reporting this? My guess is Uhh ... good point ... Do you notice something about your little emoticons? They're Spinning. Note that a quick "google news" search indicates the news has not yet hit the "authorized media." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted April 20, 2009 at 07:14 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 07:14 PM "Damned lawyers ... they have enough work already (no offense to any lawyers here)." Sorry to be off topic but I read an interesting "joke" yesterday:What do you called a failed lawyer? A politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted April 20, 2009 at 07:26 PM Share Posted April 20, 2009 at 07:26 PM Correct me if I'm wrong: this means that in the 9th Circuit, federal courts are bound to consider the 2nd incorporated. It doesn't do that for the rest of us, but it does mean that if the 7th Circuit rules against us in the Chicago lawsuits, there'll be a conflict between two circuits on the question and the SCOTUS will almost have to grant cert in one case or the other. Is that about right? The 7th has already ruled against incorporation (Quilici v Morton Grove). Therefore there already is a circuit split. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.