Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Heller incorporated by 9th circuit

  1. #1
    Regular Member knight_308's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Renton, ,
    Posts
    173

    Post imported post

    Full opinion: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...20/0715763.pdf

    This was an appeal to the 9th circuit over the Alameda County CA ban on firearms on county property that resulted in the gun shows being unable to be held there.

    The gun show organizer appealed a 1st amendment ruling that the county acted lawfully and wanted to add a 2nd amendment challenge.

    The judges ruled in favor of the county on the 1st amendment and wasn't willing to allow the gun show organizers to amend their complaint to add the 2nd amendment challenge so the county "won" and therefore this ruling will probably not be appealed to the Supreme Court.

    In othere words (if I am understanding the process correctly) this ruling now applies as precedent in all areas under the 9th circuit (CA, AK, AZ, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA).
    Pulled this off of another forum. Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    That is way off. The 2nd was not incorporated because the justices denied the petitioner's request to amend it with a 2nd amendment argument.

    Alameda won on a 1st amendment ruling, period. Also this does not carry over into Wa. because our state laws are completely different than Ca.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    AH.. but the basis of Nichols 'ban' is supposedly the Sequim ruling in which the county was allowed to act as a private property holder when leasing out it's property. There may yet be ripples to this ruling for Washington.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    WA state actually has pretty solid protection for 2A rights already. Its not perfect, but I would not expect this ruling to have a whole lot of affect on WA residents.



  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Phssthpok wrote:
    AH.. but the basis of Nichols 'ban' is supposedly the Sequim ruling in which the county was allowed to act as a private property holder when leasing out it's property. There may yet be ripples to this ruling for Washington.
    Uh no. Ca. does not have the pre-emption that we have. They have pre-emption for manufacturing and registration but not possession.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Phssthpok wrote:
    AH.. but the basis of Nichols 'ban' is supposedly the Sequim ruling in which the county was allowed to act as a private property holder when leasing out it's property. There may yet be ripples to this ruling for Washington.
    Uh no. Ca. does not have the pre-emption that we have. They have pre-emption for manufacturing and registration but not possession.
    Allow me to clarify: There may yet be some major ruffling of Nichols' feathers due to this ruling.

    To whit: the wind (IMHO) has been taken out of Nichols' "The rule is legal because of Sequim" logic sail. It's another slap to his face with the wet Mackerel of law.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Phssthpok wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    Phssthpok wrote:
    AH.. but the basis of Nichols 'ban' is supposedly the Sequim ruling in which the county was allowed to act as a private property holder when leasing out it's property. There may yet be ripples to this ruling for Washington.
    Uh no. Ca. does not have the pre-emption that we have. They have pre-emption for manufacturing and registration but not possession.
    Allow me to clarify: There may yet be some major ruffling of Nichols' feathers due to this ruling.

    To whit: the wind (IMHO) has been taken out of Nichols' "The rule is legal because of Sequim" logic sail. It's another slap to his face with the wet Mackerel of law.
    Ahhhh. I see your point, missed it in the last post. You may be right but I would imagine that his attorney's would advise him differently because of the huge difference in pre emption between the two states.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Taco-Ma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    309

    Post imported post

    The 9th circuit has long been known as a hotbed of socialist decisions, this is just another one. What happens in Kalifornia should stay there and NEVER be allowed to affect the rest of the human race.
    When the **** hits the fan, ask yourself: What Would Bugly Do?

  9. #9
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    Phssthpok wrote:
    It's another slap to his face with the wet Mackerel of law.
    :ROFL:

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    This has a huge effect on all gun owners. The 9th circuit court did affirm that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and is incorporated under the 14th amendment.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    parrotdog wrote:
    This has a huge effect on all gun owners.Â* The 9th circuit court did affirm that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and is incorporated under the 14th amendment.
    Very strange. Reading a synopsis of the ruling indicates that they denied hearing a 2nd amendment claim in the case but then they go ahead and analyze it on a 2nd argument.

    Very interesting but excellent. I guess that will teach me to read a synopsis of a ruling.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  12. #12
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    Page 41 states in part:

    For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s

    grant of summary judgment to the County on the Nordykes’

    First Amendment and equal protection claims and, although

    we conclude that the Second Amendment is indeed incorporated

    against the states, we AFFIRM the district court’s

    refusal to grant the Nordykes leave to amend their complaint

    to add a Second Amendment claim in this case.
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    134

    Post imported post

    This ruling basicallysays thatstates and local governments cannot pass laws in violation of the second amendment, (which is subject to reasonable restrictions). They believed a fairgrounds ban on guns is a reasonable restriction. It will effect states and cities such as New York, Illinios, Chicago, etc. It doesn't effect Seattle one whit, because of state pre-emption. In fact, if it was not for our state pre-emption, this ruling would validate Seattle's ordinance.

  14. #14
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    Agreed.
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Taco-Ma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    309

    Post imported post

    Funny how they would make that a 14th Amdt "right", the 14th Amdt "gives" citizenship to persons not born here and also is the first instance where the word Citizen appears in a non-capitolized state, up till the 11the Amdt, the word was spelled Citizen, after that, it appears next in the 14th as citizen. This is a legal change of status which indicates the word is a description rather than a title. Somehow, since I don't trust the 9th circuit much, I believe it is a ploy to diminish the original intent of the 2nd Amdt right so they can redefine within their own agenda.

    Should be interesting, since the 2nd Amdt is the only place in our Constitution where our "free state" is mentioned.

    Just my $.02, of course....
    When the **** hits the fan, ask yourself: What Would Bugly Do?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    That is way off. The 2nd was not incorporated because the justices denied the petitioner's request to amend it with a 2nd amendment argument.

    Alameda won on a 1st amendment ruling, period. Also this does not carry over into Wa. because our state laws are completely different than Ca.
    "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."

    Page 29 of the court's ruling.

    Since the 9th Circuit includes the western states including Washington, the 2nd Amendment is now incorporated against the states in the 9th Circuit area until such time as they either reverse their decision or the Supreme Court takes up the matter.

    This is a HUGE win for us, folks.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Huge win, and a huge loss. It affirmed that the 2nd amendment applies to the states, but then turned around and said that the restrictions were reasonable. Basically, it affirmed the right to keep arms (in the home), but not to bear arms (anywhere that there might be a gathering of people).

    Basically, it says "yeah, you have those rights, but no, they don't actually apply nor will we enforce them."
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    That is way off. The 2nd was not incorporated because the justices denied the petitioner's request to amend it with a 2nd amendment argument.

    Alameda won on a 1st amendment ruling, period. Also this does not carry over into Wa. because our state laws are completely different than Ca.
    "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."

    Page 29 of the court's ruling.

    Since the 9th Circuit includes the western states including Washington, the 2nd Amendment is now incorporated against the states in the 9th Circuit area until such time as they either reverse their decision or the Supreme Court takes up the matter.

    This is a HUGE win for us, folks.
    Read some of my posts after the one you quoted, will ya.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    heresolong wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    That is way off. The 2nd was not incorporated because the justices denied the petitioner's request to amend it with a 2nd amendment argument.

    Alameda won on a 1st amendment ruling, period. Also this does not carry over into Wa. because our state laws are completely different than Ca.
    "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."

    Page 29 of the court's ruling.

    Since the 9th Circuit includes the western states including Washington, the 2nd Amendment is now incorporated against the states in the 9th Circuit area until such time as they either reverse their decision or the Supreme Court takes up the matter.

    This is a HUGE win for us, folks.
    Read some of my posts after the one you quoted, will ya.
    I did, then reread them just now. I don't see one where you clearly stated that it was, in fact, incorporated. I wasn't slamming on you anyway, just using your statement as an introduction to the text of the ruling.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    heresolong wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    That is way off. The 2nd was not incorporated because the justices denied the petitioner's request to amend it with a 2nd amendment argument.

    Alameda won on a 1st amendment ruling, period. Also this does not carry over into Wa. because our state laws are completely different than Ca.
    "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."

    Page 29 of the court's ruling.

    Since the 9th Circuit includes the western states including Washington, the 2nd Amendment is now incorporated against the states in the 9th Circuit area until such time as they either reverse their decision or the Supreme Court takes up the matter.

    This is a HUGE win for us, folks.
    Read some of my posts after the one you quoted, will ya.
    I did, then reread them just now. I don't see one where you clearly stated that it was, in fact, incorporated. I wasn't slamming on you anyway, just using your statement as an introduction to the text of the ruling.
    Ahh Gotcha. My misunderstanding then.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

Posting Permissions

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