knight_308
Regular Member
imported post
Pulled this off of another forum. Thoughts?
Pulled this off of another forum. Thoughts?
-
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.
-
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.
Heller incorporated by 9th circuit
- Thread starter knight_308
- Start date
joeroket
Regular Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
ilbob
Campaign Veteran
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.
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.
joeroket
Regular Member
imported post
Phssthpok wrote:
Phssthpok wrote:
Uh no. Ca. does not have the pre-emption that we have. They have pre-emption for manufacturing and registration but not possession.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.
imported post
joeroket wrote:
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.
joeroket wrote:
Allow me to clarify: There may yet be some major ruffling of Nichols' feathers due to this ruling.Phssthpok wrote:Uh no. Ca. does not have the pre-emption that we have. They have pre-emption for manufacturing and registration but not possession.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.
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.
joeroket
Regular Member
imported post
Phssthpok wrote:
Phssthpok wrote:
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.joeroket wrote:Allow me to clarify: There may yet be some major ruffling of Nichols' feathers due to this ruling.Phssthpok wrote:Uh no. Ca. does not have the pre-emption that we have. They have pre-emption for manufacturing and registration but not possession.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.
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.
bugly
Regular Member
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.
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.
John Hardin
Regular Member
imported post
Phssthpok wrote:
Phssthpok wrote:
:ROFL:
El Jefe Cojones P-220
New member
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.
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.
joeroket
Regular Member
imported post
parrotdog wrote:
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.
parrotdog wrote:
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.
j2l3
Regular Member
imported post
Page 41 states in part:
[align=left]For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s[/align]
[align=left]grant of summary judgment to the County on the Nordykes’[/align]
[align=left]First Amendment and equal protection claims and, although[/align]
[align=left]we conclude that the Second Amendment is indeed incorporated[/align]
[align=left]against the states, we AFFIRM the district court’s[/align]
[align=left]refusal to grant the Nordykes leave to amend their complaint[/align]
to add a Second Amendment claim in this case.
Page 41 states in part:
[align=left]For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s[/align]
[align=left]grant of summary judgment to the County on the Nordykes’[/align]
[align=left]First Amendment and equal protection claims and, although[/align]
[align=left]we conclude that the Second Amendment is indeed incorporated[/align]
[align=left]against the states, we AFFIRM the district court’s[/align]
[align=left]refusal to grant the Nordykes leave to amend their complaint[/align]
to add a Second Amendment claim in this case.
Marty Hayes
Regular Member
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.
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.
j2l3
Regular Member
imported post
Agreed.
Agreed.
bugly
Regular Member
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....
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....
heresolong
Regular Member
imported post
joeroket wrote:
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.
joeroket wrote:
"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.
Tawnos
Regular Member
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."
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."
joeroket
Regular Member
imported post
heresolong wrote:
heresolong wrote:
Read some of my posts after the one you quoted, will ya.
heresolong
Regular Member
imported post
joeroket wrote:
joeroket wrote:
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.
joeroket
Regular Member
imported post
heresolong wrote:
heresolong wrote:
Ahh Gotcha. My misunderstanding then.