Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Second Circuit: Heller doesn't apply to states

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    Here's a case that could force a SCOTUS decision on incorporating the 2nd Amendment under the 14th.

    http://reason.com/blog/show/131610.html

    ...the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals has said it before (in the 2005 case Bach v. Pataki), and now they've said it again, in Maloney v. Cuomo. CrimProf Blog has some details:
    The Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms does not apply to override state firearms bans, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declared Jan. 28. Under the incorporation doctrine, only certain provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states, and the Second Amendment is one of those that does not, the Second Circuit held....
    ...
    The case on the nearest horizon that holds the most hope for generating a new, post-Heller, consideration of the Second Amendment incorporation question is the Ninth Circuit case Nordyke v. King. Damon Root wrote about it back in October.


  2. #2
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Euless, Texas, USA
    Posts
    141

    Post imported post

    This needs to happen.

    But at the same time it could make it that much easier for the feds to take away the right completely.

  3. #3
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Okay, I'll agree with said opinion if this means states can override federal bans on machine guns and other restricted weapons.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    insane.kangaroo wrote:
    Okay, I'll agree with said opinion if this means states can override federal bans on machine guns and other restricted weapons.
    ...and all interstate-commerce laws.

    Edit: If the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to States, what's the problem with re-instating slavery in the South? They still have cotton fields, right? The implications of human rights (the right to defend and preserve your own life, the right to be a free person) not applying is appalling. That's what Socialism is about though, isn't it?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
    Posts
    408

    Post imported post

    I wouldn't dwell on this ruling too much. The court said they are still bound by Cruikshank and Presser, and the Plantiff didn't ask for a inquiry using the modern incorporation doctrine. So really there was no other way to go.



    They didn't actually reject incorporation, it just never came up.

  6. #6
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Euless, Texas, USA
    Posts
    141

    Post imported post

    press1280 wrote:
    I wouldn't dwell on this ruling too much. The court said they are still bound by Cruikshank and Presser, and the Plantiff didn't ask for a inquiry using the modern incorporation doctrine. So really there was no other way to go.

    *

    They didn't actually reject incorporation, it just never came up.

    Well someone needs to push it forward.

Posting Permissions

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