The 9th Circuit (Circus) Court of Appeals just ruled that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution is binding upon the State and local Governments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

looks like they finally got a case correct!

THAT'S GREAT!!!!!!Halleluleah!!!!!
Now, references to the ruling?
Bear in Fairbanks

Frank,

Thanks for the info, good news from the 9th.

Don

quote:

Originally posted by buckeyeshooter:
looks like they finally got a case correct!

What do you mean? The court asserted that the Alameda County ordinance prohibiting firearms, and thus gun shows, is OK. That's what this appeal was all about.

I wouldn't exactly call it good news. The court ruled that the county had the right to ban guns on it's property. I wonder why they didn't make the argument the county property is also public property maintained with public funds? It also could be interpreted as the states are able to ban guns in parks, public buildings like college campuses, national forests etc.

I know it is an onerous and long read but so was the stimulous bill. It is important to READ them.

Is this Heller related at all?

Does this incorporate Heller?

I just went thru this thing. It's a finding for the anti's. How in the world do you figure we win? I have to admit I was a bit skeptical at the start since it was a finding for us gun owners from the most liberal circuit court of them all. Geez!!!!!
Bear in Fairbanks

the finding did sight Heller, but said the Heller decision only applied to peoples right to defend themselves in their homes.

I don't know what you guys are reading. In the history of the 9th Circuit they have unequivically ruled that the Second Amendment was a collective right of the State. This ruling changes everything.

Read the last finding:

[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.

I think the part about finding that Alameda county has the right to ban guns on county property is the sticker, after all the beating around the bush county govt. usurps all other entities.

This is a win for us. A rather big one, in fact.

The effect is adverse on existing and proposed STATE gun control laws (including CA's "assault weapon" ban) and overturns a lot of case law where the state courts ignored 2nd Amendment arguments for lack of incorporation. They no longer have this luxury. And there are a lot of cases where lack of incorporation or with the "collective rights" interpretation was used against us. As the 9th noted, the collective rights basis has been thrown out the window by Heller, and judges pre-disposed against gun rights can't hide behind lack of incorporation.

This is a 1-2 punch for us and against the gun-grabbers. 1. Heller is now "incorporated" on the states in the 9th district, in ALL COURTS. That means the existing gun control laws can be challenged as infringing on the 2nd Amendment and not be routinely dismissed on lack of incorporation grounds. 2. It makes the USSC more likely to hear cases outside the 9th (such as the 7th District suit by the NRA and others) if the case goes against us.

Why? This case was decided on 14th Amendment Due Process Clause grounds, and the USSC has to harmonize the application of law across all the districts under the Equal Protection Clause. So, if the 7th District case against Chicago and Oak Park goes against us on "incorporation" (which is what Chicago claims) the USSC will have little choice except to hear it. And given that the language in Heller is effectively one of "pre-incorporated" because it is a fundamental right to have arms, especially in the home, I'd bet that the USSC would have no choice but to apply incorporation of the 2nd Amendment across all districts. Heller is exactly on point in the Chicago/Oak Park case and Chicago's/Oak Park's defense is based in part upon lack of incorporation.

Even though Nordyke didn't overturn the anti-gun show ordinance, the 9th effectively put California on notice that Heller is part of the law of the land and can't be ignored.

I would categorize this decision as a tactical loss but a big strategic win for us. We now have a 2-handed broadsword we can swing against the Brady's of the USA because now they have to prove, in all respects, that gun control laws have to have a reasonable connection to, and justification for, limiting a right protected by the Bill of Rights. Or, to put it another way, before the State can limit an individual righht, they have to prove in real terms that the value of limiting that right far outweighs the value of that right left intact. For example, early in the 20th Century, the USSC ruled that people who deliberately shout "fire" in a theater, where there is no fire, had no 1st Amendment immunity. The value of prohibiting this speech is in lives saved by not needlessly incurring panic. Defamation laws put another limit on free speech because the RIGHT to have an unsullied reputation is more important than the rights of an individual to tell vicious lies about you.

Similarly, the gun grabbers and their allies in Congress and the legislatures, whether they know it or not (and they probably do know) have to make the case that any gun control law they try to enact must be of such import and value to society so as to limit the right to keep and bear arms, a specific right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. And given the language of "shall not be infringed" (a stronger prohibition than the one in the 1st Amendment - "Congress shall pass no law") the bar to justify infringement is (1) set very high, and (2) thanks to the 9th District, will soon apply to every legislative body and court in America.

Beware however that Treaties supercede even the Constitution, so there is still an avenue for a attacking our rights. Just yesterday, the President proposed a treaty with Mexico that would "ban the illegal manufacture and trafficking" of firearms and ammunition. If passed, this could end reloading and even gunsmithing. Fortunately, the President cannot ratify a treaty by himself. I recommend you read the test either at the NRA site or at Gunowners.org.

I see this as more a defeat wherein they paid lip service to the supreme court case, with the intent of beginning the process of narrowing its application.