Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: NRA Looses Incorporation at 7th Cir. - Chicago

  1. #1
    Regular Member Virginiaplanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    402

    Post imported post

    The 7th circuit in a strange and irrational opinion released today upheld the lower court that the 2nd amendment is not incorporated against the states.

    7th Circuit Opinion

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Virginiaplanter wrote:
    The 7th circuit in a strange and irrational opinion released today upheld the lower court that the 2nd amendment is not incorporated against the states.

    7th Circuit Opinion
    An opposite opinion to the 9th Circuit. Praise the left coast.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Washoe County, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    This is rediculous -- what other RIGHTS aren't RIGHTS in states?

    Does one not have free speech in a state?

    The right against self-incrimination?

    The right to be secure in one's belongings?

    Now it goes to the Supreme Court and Scalia and Roberts need to settle this once and for all, the states need a much harder smack down than Heller this time, they need the bat to the head.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    I get a page not found on that link.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Virginiaplanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    402

    Post imported post

    Try this link and then click on Today and then NRA

    http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx

    Ok , Just after I tried this and it worked it went blank. The Court must be moving the links.


    I think I have this figured out. First you have to go to the main web Page at


    http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/


    Then click on Opinions, Then Today, and a list will appear. Click on NRA

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    That the Constitution establishes a
    federal republic where local differences are to be cherished
    as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to
    produce a single, nationally applicable rule. See New State
    Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J.,
    dissenting) (“It is one of the happy incidents of the federal
    system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens
    choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and
    economic experiments without risk to the rest of the
    country.
    ”)
    They've been trying this "novel social experiment" for a while now. The results are disturbing, with crime in such places being worse than others without such overreaching laws. Seems you can't fix stupid.

    Also, try this link: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...8-4241_002.pdf
    "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

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/O01FGA7H.pdf

    It seems like a pretty reasonable opinion to me and pretty much what was expected. Many people hoped they would incorporate it but I think that even the NRA guessed this would be the outcome.

    From the transcript:

    "If a court of appeals could disregard a decision of the Supreme Court by identifying, and accepting, one or another contention not expressly addressed by the Justices, the Court’s decisions could be circumvented with ease. They would bind only judges too dim-witted to come up with a novel argument."

    SCOTUS--“for it is this Court’s prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents.” 522 U.S. at 20. See also, e.g.,
    Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (2005).

    Although I don't agree with alot of the useless banter that the judges engaged in the decision is correct IMO. They just should have kept it short and sweet......like only the two quotes above.

    Besides, this only confirms the dispute among the circuits leading inevitably to SCOTUS. Let's just hope they hear it while there is still a likely 5-4 decision in favor of incorporation.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    416

    Post imported post

    Brass Magnet wrote:
    http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/O01FGA7H.pdf

    It seems like a pretty reasonable opinion to me and pretty much what was expected. Many people hoped they would incorporate it but I think that even the NRA guessed this would be the outcome.

    From the transcript:


    "If a court of appeals could disregard a decision of the Supreme Court by identifying, and accepting, one or another contention not expressly addressed by the Justices, the Court’s decisions could be circumvented with ease. They would bind only judges too dim-witted to come up with a novel argument."


    SCOTUS--“for it is this Court’s prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents.” 522 U.S. at 20. See also, e.g.,
    Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (2005).


    Although I don't agree with alot of the useless banter that the judges engaged in the decision is correct IMO. They just should have kept it short and sweet......like only the two quotes above.


    Besides, this only confirms the dispute among the circuits leading inevitably to SCOTUS. Let's just hope they hear it while there is still a likely 5-4 decision in favor of incorporation.
    Agree 100%. They kind of have to rule this way based on Supreme Court precedent. Heller did not incorporate the 2nd against the states people.

  9. #9
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453

    Post imported post

    Remember Peter Nap and Skidmark. Do them proud. Be active. Be well informed. ALL rights matter.

    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when you may have to back up your acts with your life."

    --Robert A. Heinlein

    Hey NSA! *&$# you. Record this--- MOLON LABE!

  10. #10
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,963

    Post imported post

    Another loss for the NRA. Lets hope that Nordyke is the case on incorporation that SCOTUS hears.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    84

    Post imported post

    Actually I would rather have the Chicago case go to the S. Ct. for incorporation. First, I think it unlikely that California will appeal the Nordyke decision to the S. Ct. Other ban banning groups would rather delay/avoid having the S. Ct. rule on incorporation. Second, the Chicago case involves nearly the identical ban/lawswhich the S.Ct. already addressed in Heller. Therefore the s.Ct. would not have to decide whether the particular gun ban violates the 2A IF the 2A applies. Heller already decided that. It is a very clean and simple case for the S.Ct. a pure issue of law. Is the 2A incorporated against the states or is it not.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    sjalterego wrote:
    Actually I would rather have the Chicago case go to the S. Ct. for incorporation. First, I think it unlikely that California will appeal the Nordyke decision to the S. Ct. Other ban banning groups would rather delay/avoid having the S. Ct. rule on incorporation. Second, the Chicago case involves nearly the identical ban/lawswhich the S.Ct. already addressed in Heller. Therefore the s.Ct. would not have to decide whether the particular gun ban violates the 2A IF the 2A applies. Heller already decided that. It is a very clean and simple case for the S.Ct. a pure issue of law. Is the 2A incorporated against the states or is it not.
    I would favor the New York nunchaku case. Since Sotomayor heard the appeal to the 2nd Circuit, she would probably need to recuse herself from the SCOTUS deliberations.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    National City, CA, ,
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    "Besides, this only confirms the dispute among the circuits leading inevitably to SCOTUS. Let's just hope they hear it while there is still a likely 5-4 decision in favor of incorporation."



    AGREE. Question is, how fast can we send it up to SCOTUS before the 5-4 chance is lost. Surely a lot of forces will try to sway both sides to vote differently. And with the gun issues not a favorite topic of the liberals, we might see a lot of "delays".

    This is going to be big once it reaches SCOTUS. Expect most if not all State AG's to submit their opinion.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Prophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    544

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    I would favor the New York nunchaku case. Since Sotomayor heard the appeal to the 2nd Circuit, she would probably need to recuse herself from the SCOTUS deliberations.
    I wouldn't for this reason. If kennedy gets squemish or picky on whether nunchuks are protected under the 2nd then he may vote against leading to a 4-4 tie thus upholding the lower courts decision. That MAY have fallout with other cases.

    Let it be the Illinois case with either souter or sotomayer, barring a shocking surprise they probably would vote the same way on it so its a zero sum proposal.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,963

    Post imported post

    Prophet wrote:
    The Donkey wrote:
    I would favor the New York nunchaku case. Since Sotomayor heard the appeal to the 2nd Circuit, she would probably need to recuse herself from the SCOTUS deliberations.
    I wouldn't for this reason. If kennedy gets squemish or picky on whether nunchuks are protected under the 2nd then he may vote against leading to a 4-4 tie thus upholding the lower courts decision. That MAY have fallout with other cases.

    Let it be the Illinois case with either souter or sotomayer, barring a shocking surprise they probably would vote the same way on it so its a zero sum proposal.
    +1 Prophet. I would, however prefer the 9th Circuit case with the NRA not in charge.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    Prophet wrote:
    The Donkey wrote:
    I would favor the New York nunchaku case. Since Sotomayor heard the appeal to the 2nd Circuit, she would probably need to recuse herself from the SCOTUS deliberations.
    I wouldn't for this reason. If kennedy gets squemish or picky on whether nunchuks are protected under the 2nd then he may vote against leading to a 4-4 tie thus upholding the lower courts decision. That MAY have fallout with other cases.

    Let it be the Illinois case with either souter or sotomayer, barring a shocking surprise they probably would vote the same way on it so its a zero sum proposal.
    +1 Prophet. I would, however prefer the 9th Circuit case with the NRA not in charge.
    What difference does it make who is in charge? The only valid reason to not wish the NRA to be in charge is so you don't have to give them credit if it goes FOR gun rights. Otherwise, whether the NRA is involved or not, we all should prefer that the outcome is FOR our 2nd Amendment Right.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    263

    Post imported post

    NRA announced that they are filing the petition to appeal this case to SCOTUS

    http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/News....aspx?ID=12549

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    This is one of those times where the right reasoning leads to the wrong outcome. The Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to the states. However, because of places like Chicago, the doctrine of incorporation, while technically incorrect, is the best way of ensuring that people can freely exercise their rights.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    Flyer22 wrote:
    The Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to the states.
    How do you come to this conclusion? Even if you do come to this conclusion in the time frame of the countries founding how can you come to this conclusion upon ratification of the 14th?
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Flyer22 wrote:
    This is one of those times where the right reasoning leads to the wrong outcome. The Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to the states. However, because of places like Chicago, the doctrine of incorporation, while technically incorrect, is the best way of ensuring that people can freely exercise their rights.
    Many States include very similar language in their Constitutions. Nevada has Section 11 for our 2nd Amendment Right. One difficulty is in getting the State, County, and City governments to understand it.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , , Zimbabwe
    Posts
    114

    Post imported post

    Brass Magnet wrote:
    Even if you do come to this conclusion in the time frame of the countries founding how can you come to this conclusion upon ratification of the 14th?
    not e en speld well
    You speak an infinite deal of nothing. -

    Shakespeare -The Merchant of Venice-

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    No1 wrote:
    Brass Magnet wrote:
    Even if you do come to this conclusion in the time frame of the countries founding how can you come to this conclusion upon ratification of the 14th?
    not e en speld well
    You speak an infinite deal of nothing. -

    Shakespeare -The Merchant of Venice-
    Spelling is fine. Did you have a specific to address about the statement?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    Many States include very similar language in their Constitutions. Nevada has Section 11 for our 2nd Amendment Right. One difficulty is in getting the State, County, and City governments to understand it.
    Out of curiosity, I looked up the RKBA section in the Illinois constitution:

    SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
    Subject only to the police power, the right of the
    individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
    infringed.
    I have no idea what that means, if anything. Does it mean that police power can strip the RKBA at will?

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    No1 wrote:
    Brass Magnet wrote:
    Even if you do come to this conclusion in the time frame of the countries founding how can you come to this conclusion upon ratification of the 14th?
    not e en speld well
    You speak an infinite deal of nothing. -

    Shakespeare -The Merchant of Venice-
    Spelling is fine. Did you have a specific to address about the statement?
    Yeah, WTH No1? That's a quote I used in another thread..... are you Doug Huffman masquerading as No1? Besides, I was asking a question of someone who isn't you.

    swillden wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    Many States include very similar language in their Constitutions. Nevada has Section 11 for our 2nd Amendment Right. One difficulty is in getting the State, County, and City governments to understand it.
    Out of curiosity, I looked up the RKBA section in the Illinois constitution:

    SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
    Subject only to the police power, the right of the
    individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
    infringed.
    I have no idea what that means, if anything. Does it mean that police power can strip the RKBA at will?
    I'm guessing it means the states police power. Meaning the state can legislate RKBA away at any time.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    Brass Magnet wrote:
    Flyer22 wrote:
    The Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to the states.
    How do you come to this conclusion? Even if you do come to this conclusion in the time frame of the countries founding how can you come to this conclusion upon ratification of the 14th?
    The adoption of the 14th serves the point rather well: the BoR was not intended to apply to the states. With passage of the 14th, it became clear that the entire BoR does apply to the states, and I remain mystified by the notion of "incorporation".

    Oh, wait, that's right.... the doctrine of incorporation, just like gun control, was designed to allow legal discrimination against racial minorities.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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