• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Jose Melendez would concider Open Carry law if it had same training and Licensure requirements

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:
Mike wrote: I never stated that Emerson was an incorporation case. Emerson found the 2nd to be an individual right, applicable to Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
No, Emerson held only that the Second Amendment provided an individual right against federal power. Current but dated federal S. Ct. cases say the Second Amendment is not incorporated. But see footnote 23 of Heller.

Selective incorporation of federal rights against state power by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment is the process by which the courts have slowly applied formerly federal rights against state action.

A federal circuit holding is only binding on district courts in that circuit and future circuit panels. Federal circuit holdings are not binding on the state courts in any circuit - they have no more pursuasive authority than the federal circuit courts in other parts of the country - only the federal Supreme Court can overrule a state appellatecourt, and even then, only on a federal question.
 

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
DKSuddeth wrote:
Mike wrote: I never stated that Emerson was an incorporation case. Emerson found the 2nd to be an individual right, applicable to Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
No, Emerson held only that the Second Amendment provided an individual right against federal power. Current but dated federal S. Ct. cases say the Second Amendment is not incorporated. But see footnote 23 of Heller.

Selective incorporation of federal rights against state power by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment is the process by which the courts have slowly applied formerly federal rights against state action.

A federal circuit holding is only binding on district courts in that circuit and future circuit panels. Federal circuit holdings are not binding on the state courts in any circuit - they have no more pursuasive authority than the federal circuit courts in other parts of the country - only the federal Supreme Court can overrule a state appellatecourt, and even then, only on a federal question.
So are you saying that Murdock v. PA is no longer good law?
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:
Mike wrote:
DKSuddeth wrote:
Mike wrote: I never stated that Emerson was an incorporation case. Emerson found the 2nd to be an individual right, applicable to Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
No, Emerson held only that the Second Amendment provided an individual right against federal power. Current but dated federal S. Ct. cases say the Second Amendment is not incorporated. But see footnote 23 of Heller.

Selective incorporation of federal rights against state power by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment is the process by which the courts have slowly applied formerly federal rights against state action.

A federal circuit holding is only binding on district courts in that circuit and future circuit panels. Federal circuit holdings are not binding on the state courts in any circuit - they have no more pursuasive authority than the federal circuit courts in other parts of the country - only the federal Supreme Court can overrule a state appellatecourt, and even then, only on a federal question.
So are you saying that Murdock v. PA is no longer good law?
Not all.
 
Top