Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: HELP GET 2nd AMENDMENT INCORPORATION IN THE 9TH CIRCUIT!!!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    City of Angeles - San Fernando Valley, California, USA
    Posts
    158

    Post imported post

    The time to rally for the Constitution is now! If not you? Then who?

    THESE STATES WILL BE AFFECTED:

    "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:

    District of Alaska
    District of Arizona
    Central District of California
    Eastern District of California
    Northern District of California
    Southern District of California
    District of Hawaii
    District of Idaho
    District of Montana
    District of Nevada
    District of Oregon
    Eastern District of Washington
    Western District of Washington

    It also has appellate jurisdiction over the following territorial courts:

    District Court of Guam
    United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands"





    PLEASE CROSS POST TO ALL FREEDOM FORUMS!!!!


    From Calguns.net (Defending The 2nd Amendment & California's Firearm Owners)

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=124196



    URGENT: Calls and letters to support Nordyke Incorporation!





    All,

    Some organizations in the law enforcement community are going to oppose Incorporation of the Second Amendment. Many of us suspect that isn't the position that most officers, chiefs, and sheriffs actually support. In support of the Nordyke appeal we need members of the following organizations to both ask their organization to withdraw their amicus briefs and/or to write letters to the Court of Appeals stating that the organization does not speak for them:

    California Peace Officers' Association - 916-263-0541 - cpoa@cpoa.org
    California State Sheriffs' Association - 916-375-8000 - cssa@calsheriffs.org
    California Police Chiefs' Association - 916-481-8000 - lmcgill@californiapolicechiefs.org

    If you're a member of any of these organizations, you need to call the organization to ask them to withdraw their amicus brief and to write to the Court and tell them that as a member you don't support your organization opposing Incorporation of an enumerated and fundamental right in the Bill of Rights.

    Write to:
    U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
    RE: Nordyke v. King, No. 07-15763
    95 Seventh Street
    San Francisco, CA 94103

    If you're not a member, please contact your Chief or Sheriff and ask a LEO friend to call and write a letter. If they don't want to, ask them why not. I'd suggest calling and politely speaking to your Chief or Sheriff just as you'd call Sacramento.


    -Gene


    What can I do if I'm not in California or a CA LEO?
    I also ask everyone to call each organization and tell them that you don't appreciate these organizations implicitly supporting the murder of African American elected Judges and Sheriffs by mobs (see US. v. Cruikshank, and The Colfax Massacre) and that you'd appreciate that they take seriously their members' oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    Let's be heard.


    The history on the 9th Circuit's "Nordyke" case:

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=123963

    Also you can forward this following letter to anyone you know in CA and ask them to contact their city and state officials (change it as needed):

    Friends:

    I'm sure that you are aware that the US Supreme Court recently decided in the landmark Heller v. Washington DC case that the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, really means what it clearly says - that individual citizens have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

    As a legal matter, that ruling is only binding on the federal government, and not YET directly binding upon the states and local governments.

    According to current 14th Amendment legal theory, in order to be binding upon states and locals, the 2nd Amendment must be "incorporated" as an enumerated and fundamental right, into the 14th Amendment.

    CA currently has an ongoing court case that should result in "incorporating" the
    2nd Amendment for CA citizens.

    AMAZINGLY, however, CA law enforcement bureaucrats who SWORE to Support and Defend the Constitution, are actively opposing the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights in CA!

    These 3 organizations are planning to send legal Amicus Briefs opposing the 2nd Amendment and the US Supreme Court's Decision:

    California Peace Officers' Association - 916-263-0541 -
    cpoa@cpoa.org

    California State Sheriffs' Association - 916-375-8000 - cssa@calsheriffs.org

    California Police Chiefs' Association - 916-481-8000 - lmcgill@californiapolicechiefs.org

    I'm hereby requesting that Chief ____ and/or the _____ Police Department:

    1. send a letter to each of the 3 organizations stating opposition to the unAmerican Amicus Briefs and positions on the matter, and

    2. Address the same letter to the Court:

    U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
    RE: Nordyke v. King, No. 07-15763
    95 Seventh Street
    San Francisco, CA 94103

    It may be helpful to pass this message along to individual police officers who may wish to contact the Court and organizations, in the event that the organizations do not speak for them on this matter.

    Additionally - anyone can call or write these organizations to ask them why they implicitly support the murder of elected African American Judges and Sheriffs by mobs (see US. v. Cruikshank, and The Colfax Massacre) and inquire whether they understand their members' oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    Finally, if any City / taxpayer money goes to these organizations for dues, etc in any form - it should be CUT OFF (recognizing that CA POA is a labor union).

    Please contact me with any questions or comments.

    Sometimes, its necessary to stand up for Freedom....


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    City of Angeles - San Fernando Valley, California, USA
    Posts
    158

    Post imported post

    BUMP!!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    City of Angeles - San Fernando Valley, California, USA
    Posts
    158

    Post imported post

    FROM NRA



    CAL-ERT 10/03/08 --- CALIFORNIA LITIGATION UPDATE -- from Chuck Michel, esq.
    Friday, October 3, 2008 1:26 PM
















    NRA
    Members'
    Councils
    of
    California



    << Please cross-post & distribute this CAL-ERT >>
    << Please cross-post & distribute this CAL-ERT >>
    << Please cross-post & distribute this CAL-ERT >>




    CALIFORNIA LITIGATION UPDATE
    This information is accurate at the time this CAL-ERT was written and originally distributed. The NRA Members' Councils of California will keep you informed as the legislative and/or litigation situation changes in California







    The following is from NRA's California Attorney, Chuck Michel.

    [size=HISTORIC BRIEFS ON SECOND AMENDMENT “INCORPORATION” ][/size]

    [size=FILED IN GUN SHOW BAN APPEAL][/size]


    Following on the heels of the June 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment does protect a fundamental individual right, a California law suit that has been bouncing back and forth in the court for almost ten years has become the unlikely vehicle by which the question of whether the Second Amendment is “incorporated” so it restricts state and local gun control efforts (in addition to federal gun control efforts via the Heller ruling) may be answered.

    Today members of an NRA led coalition filed a flurry of “friend of the court” amicus briefs in the case of Nordyke v. Alamenda,, now before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Nordyke case was filed by gun show promoters challenging an ordinance that bans guns on county property (effectively banning the gun show at the county fairgrounds).

    A number of police unions and several cities filed amicus briefs on behalf of Alameda, arguing against incorporation. All of the briefs are posted at http://www.calgunlaws.com/.

    The case has a long history going back almost ten years. Alameda County passed the ordinance in August of 1999. Gun show promoters Russ and Sally Nordyke filed suit in federal court to prevent enforcement of the ordinance. The suit alleged that state law preempted the ordinance and that the ordinance violated First Amendment free speech guarantees. The District court denied their request for a preliminary injunction to stop the ordinance from being enforced.

    The Nordykes appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The three judge panel assigned to the case referred it to the California Supreme Court to determine the state law question of whether the ordinance was preempted by state law. The California Supreme Court decided that state law did not preempt the ordinance and then referred the case back to the Ninth Circuit. (That preemption decision was heavily relied on by San Francisco in the Fiscal case.)

    The Ninth Circuit three judge panel heard arguments on the remaining federal law issue; whether the ordinance violated the First Amendment, in February 2003. Remarkably, the court also agreed to hear arguments that the ordinance was invalid under the Second Amendment. NRA submitted an amicus brief on the issue at that time, and lead the efforts of several other amicus submissions.

    The three judge panel first determined that possession of firearms is not always a form of speech and therefore is not protected by the First Amendment. It did, however, essentially invite the plaintiffs to amend their pleadings and show that speech might be implicated in a particular situation and to litigate that “ass applied” challenge in the trial court.

    Additionally, the Ninth Circuit panel determined in 2003 that the Second Amendment did not prohibit this ordinance, but not necessarily because the panel actually thought that was the case. The panel said it was bound by Ninth Circuit precedent that had adopted a “collective rights” view of the Second Amendment in Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996). Significantly, the panel concluded that the precedent adopting the “collective rights” view of the Second Amendment was wrongly decided, but held that this precedent could only be overturned by an eleven judge (en banc) panel (or by the United States Supreme Court). The Nordyke court also sharply criticized a then-recent decision by another three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002).

    So the Nordykes petitioned for an en banc panel hearing. The court denied the request, but five judges dissented from his denial, and another judge expressed his agreement with the positions contained within the dissent. Sevearl dissents laid out or adopted remarkably articulate arguments that the Second Amendment is an individual right, just like the rest of the Bills of Rights. Some of the dissents were written by rather liberal judges.

    A petition for review by the United State Supreme Court was submitted. The NRA and other filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to hear the case on August 27, 2004. The Supreme Court denied review on September 27, 2004.

    The case was then sent back to the trial court, and an amended Complaint was filed. The Nordykes asked to be allowed to make their Second Amendment claim (along with the “as applied” First Amendment claim) again at that time, but the request was denied. Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment were heard on October 31, 2006. The motions were ruled on March 31, 2007, with the trial court granting the County’s motion and ruling that the Nordykes had no valid claim.

    The Nordykes appealed to the Ninth Circuit again on May 25, 2007. The Nordykes filed their briefs on the First Amendment issue, expecting to be assigned to a new three judge panel.

    Then the Heller case was decided. That prompted the Nordyke’s lawyer to ask the Ninth Circuit to allow additional briefing on the Second Amendment issue in light of the Heller ruling. Interestingly, and perhaps significantly, the lawyers for the County joined in the request.

    The request was granted, and the original three judge panel that had spoken favorably about the Second Amendment took the case back.

    With the supplemental briefs on the incorporation issue filed, the Court will now set a date for oral argument. The Court will almost certainly have to decide the incorporation question, and then (assuming they find that the Second Amendment applies to the states) either decide whether the gun show ban ordinance violates the Second Amendment or send the case back (remand) to the trial court to make that determination.
    __________________
    C. D. "Chuck" Michel
    Managing Partner
    TRUTANICH-MICHEL, LLP, Attorneys at Law
    Los Angeles Office
    180 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 200
    Long Beach, CA 90802
    Phone: 562-216-4441 / Fax: 562-216-4445
    Email: http://us.mc388.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=cmichel@tmllp.com
    Website: http://www.calnra.com/cgi-bin/pass.cgi?url=http://www.chuckmichel.com
    Gun law info: http://www.calnra.com/cgi-bin/pass.cgi?url=http://www.calgunlaws.com





    Continue to monitor the latest legislative updates at: http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/legs.shtml





    A printable version of this CAL-ERT can be found at: http://www.calnra.com/calerts/pdf/calert100308.pdf






    Archived CAL-ERTs can be found at: http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/calerts/archives/index.shtml




    NRA Members’ Councils of California
    http://nramemberscouncils.com/



    Due to some duplication of efforts, some people might get more than one copy of this message. We apologize if this causes any inconvenience.

    To subscribe, unsubscribe, or update your subscription information to CAL-ERTs, CLICK HERE and enter your email address.

    CAL-ERTs are provided as a free service to all gun owners and Pro-2nd Amendment organizations by the NRA Members' Councils of California. Please work together with the NRA and help once again defeat the misguided efforts of the anti-gun legislators and fringe groups by cross-posting this CAL-ERT via the Internet, newsletters/publications and hand-outs. The CALifornia-alERT system is operated by NRA staff and volunteers operating within the NRA Members' Councils Program.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PhenixCity, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    130

    Post imported post

    14 TH Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

    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.

    apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

    3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

    5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    THE 2ND INCORPORATED ?

    I hope i havent missed something in the post so far but, i just don't get it .

    Why in the world do the states have to decide, now clarified RKBA....... IS a personal right.

    From the way i have always read it it was pretty clear and now they still have the option not to recognise this god given right.

    I wonder how much longer we as the american people are going toallow our rights to be trampled.

    what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do they and the general public not understand.

    Seems to me when a territory became a state it was clear the U S CONSTUTION was the law of the land and now, states have the option to opt out on the most significant part that guarantees the rest.

    Im sorry if this post is viewed as hijacking that was not my intent but im am so disgusted with the way our constution is walked on and we are forced to ask on bended knee PLEASE CAN I?

    feel free to move this post if i have stepped out of line



  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    45-ACP in part wrote:
    THE 2ND INCORPORATED ?

    I hope i havent missed something in the post so far but, i just don't get it .


    Seems to me when a territory became a state it was clear the U S CONSTUTION was the law of the land and now, states have the option to opt out on the most significant part that guarantees the rest.

    Im sorry if this post is viewed as hijacking that was not my intent but im am so disgusted with the way our constution is walked on and we are forced to ask on bended knee PLEASE CAN I?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)#Amendment_II

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PhenixCity, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    130

    Post imported post

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/92/542/case.html

    6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

    Ok correct me if my understanding of that is wrong but its says the us congress may

    not infringe but, the states can at any time unless the decide to adopt the stance

    that its a good idea to allow us to defend our selves with a weapon .(handgun)

    Let me pose this then I know cali is a state the marches to its own drum but what about the states that have the RTKBA in there state constutions ?

    Would that not automaticaly "incorporate " it as a lawful right?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Did you read the linked Wikipedia article? The Wikipedia is good only as a first glance at a 'new' concept.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PhenixCity, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    130

    Post imported post

    [edit] Amendment II
    Right to keep and bear arms

    • This provision has not been held to be incorporated against the states. See Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). However, the court has ruled that the second amendment codifies a pre-existing individual right to possess and carry firearms, which is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.[13][/suP] See District of Columbia et al. v. Heller (2008). Because Cruickshank, Presser, and Miller predated the Supreme Court's modern incorporation cases, it now appears to be an open question as to whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. The issue is currently pending in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case of Nordyke v. King.[14][/suP]

    thats the text from your link ,, ty for that btw

    However, the court has ruled that the second amendment codifies a pre-existing individual right to possess and carry firearms, which is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

    ok we don't need the 2nd to have our weapons .

    See District of Columbia et al. v. Heller (2008). Because Cruickshank, Presser, and Miller predated the Supreme Court's modern incorporation cases, it now appears to be an open question as to whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. The issue is currently pending in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case of Nordyke v. King.[14][/suP]

    correct me if im wrong but what about the states that have TRKBA in there constutions would'nt that automatically incorporate it there ?

    Iknow this post is about the 9th and have gotten some what off topic asking about other states but, if thats not the case do all the individual states have to incorporate

    this seperatly or just Cali and then it applies to all?



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    Why is this even a question?

    The 10th Ammd. clearly states that:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    If I, as an individual, have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms, the the POWER to do so goes right along with that right. Since the SCOTUS has declared such RIGHT to be individual, then such POWER has been so declared and, via the 10th, has been reserved to me alone (as an individual) as opposed to the State.

    Or is there a different issue at stake here?

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Well then I suppose that we may dismiss all the constitutional law attorneys and Judges.

    I was trying to illuminate what IS rather than what OUGHT TO BE.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PhenixCity, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    130

    Post imported post

    Doug i agree what ought to be and what is just sux lol

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    45-ACP wrote:
    [correct me if im wrong but what about the states that have TRKBA in there constutions would'nt that automatically incorporate it there ?
    No, "incorporation" has nothing to do with state law.

    Federal courts have no jurisdiction to enforce state law.

    Statecourts enforce state law.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    City of Angeles - San Fernando Valley, California, USA
    Posts
    158

    Post imported post

    Alan Gura files brief in 9th Circuit Courts 2nd Amendment incorporation case in "Nordyke v King" and explains how we got to the point of needing incorporation due to bad SCOTUS decisions in the 1870's:

    http://www.calgunlaws.com/images/stories/saf_amicus.pdf

    other briefs in this case

    http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/...e-format-.html



  14. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    RTKBA in State Constitutions does not directly incorporate the 2nd, but state Courts may use decisions like Heller to interpret what their own RTKBA provisions mean.

    It is very good that this case is moving through the 9th Circuit (of all places) because they may have a better view of incorporation than other Circuits.

    LEOs, please write letters to the above listed LEO orgs asking them not to oppose incorporation in briefs before the Court.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Apple Valley
    Posts
    38

    Post imported post

    emailed the above addresses. We'll see what happens.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902

    Post imported post

    Of course the thugs with a badge (CA Sheriff's association) are going to oppose this case.

    If it goes our way we could make CA an open carry state and they would hate that.

    The response from the CA assembly will most likely be to change the CCW law and make it much more accessible to average peons and people who live outside of California.

    These thugs should be happy that they make the money that they make (CA LEO's have a lot of power and are paid very well) and not use their position to trample on our rights.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529

    Post imported post

    Being a great,great,great, grandson of the war of Independence, in 1776 I have to agree with "45-ACP", Incorperation is not nessesary for whats our God given right already. Its good this is going through the courts however, the 2 ND is just what it was ment to say, "The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR Armsshall NOT be INFRINGED" This is more of a statement as to our rights !!!

    The first 10 Amendments, was made to keep Governing bodies from having more Power then thecommon people. corporatly or individually. Interestingly before 1939

    anyone could carry anyway they wanted to Legally. Police were there to protect peoples rights, they did protect and serve the PEOPLE, not takeaway theirrights.

    "All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void" Marbury vs. Madison. 5 US ( 2 Cranch) 137, 174,175, (1803).

    "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can standby itself" Thomas Jefferson

    Robin47

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •