Nordyke vs. King

[wiljen]

Seems the Nordykes lost, but we may have won. The United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit ruled that the protections of the 14th amendment do Cover the 2nd. Yeah!!!!!!


"we conclude that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the protections of the Second Amendment to state and local governments"

See full decision here:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf


This should make an interesting precedent for the Chicago and other state gun law cases.

[Bladebu1]

talking about the 2nd

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&pr=goog- (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&pr=goog-sl)sl

[MtGun44]

This will only work in the 9th circuit, but of course that is a lot of the most antigun
part of the country. It will be interesting to see how the other circuits, who
are typically much MORE progun or even handed will rule, considering the
9th is usually very antigun.

I never imagined that incorporation would come so quickly or easily. This is
a VERY big deal in the path to reclaim and strengthen our lost gun rights.

Of course, they may just say - yes, you have a personal right to own guns,
but ANY restrictions that are proposed are OK, except outright banning.

Bill

[Char-Gar]

I guess I could be a Constutional law dunce, but it should not suprise anybody that the Heller case would be swiftly applied to state and local goverments via the 14th Amendment. I can't think of any of the other Amendments that do not apply to the states. Any Federal Court of Appeals who ruled the 2nd. does not apply to the states, would be seriously out of step, and that decision would last about as long as spit on a hot griddle.

Now as to restrictions/limitations on the 2nd. Admendment, there will certainly be some as every other right has some. However, the courts will use the "strict scrutinity" test on any such restrictive laws. Seriously flawed restrictions that amount to back door denial of the right won't stand the test.

To be certain this issue will be up and down in the courts for many years, but that is to be expected.

[Wayne Smith]

As far as I know neither Heller or any other case has seriously looked at the infringement issue. They have only looked at the right to keep and bear arms. That this right must not be infringed has not been fully examined or defined to my knowledge.

[montana_charlie]

Yes, the Ninth upheld the ploy to ban gunshows instigated by the anti-gun county lady (forget her name), and in the process reminded Alameda County that the Heller decision also contained the caveat;

"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt
on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of
firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding
the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools
and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions
and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

In case the county didn't notice, the court pointed out for them that...
While it's true (thanks to Heller) they can't 'ban' an entire class of firearm that is universally accepted to be useful for 'self-defence in the home'...they can devise new laws concerning 'sales' that make ownership very difficult to achieve.

That new 'tax' on cigarettes has made them so expensive even I am thinking about giving them up. Something like that on (say) ammunition could make things very difficult.

CM

[sundog]

MC, methinks the "lady's" name is King, ala Nordyke v King.

[Tom Herman]

That new 'tax' on cigarettes has made them so expensive even I am thinking about giving them up. CM

Why not grow your own tobacco?

Happy Shootin'! -Tom