Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Federal Court Says States Can Regulate Guns

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124398585843379259.html

    By JESS BRAVIN
    A federal appeals court in Chicago ruled Tuesday that the Second Amendment doesn't bar state or local governments from regulating guns, adopting the same position that Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, did when faced with the same question earlier this year.

    Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court cited the Second Amendment to strike down a handgun ban adopted in 1976 by the Washington, D.C., City Council. The court, by a 5-4 vote, found that the amendment protected from federal infringement an individual right to "keep and bear arms."

    The decision applied only to the District of Columbia, a federal enclave that is not a state. It left open whether the amendment also limits the powers of state government.

    A string of 19th century Supreme Court decisions limited application of the Bill of Rights to state governments. During the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that certain constitutional rights, but not the Second Amendment, could be enforced against the states.

    Gun-rights groups challenged ordinances in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill., as unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's decision last year. A federal district judge rejected their arguments, a decision affirmed Tuesday by the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Writing for a three-judge panel, Judge Frank Easterbrook observed that an 1886 Supreme Court decision limited the Second Amendment to the federal government. While that decision might be a "fossil," the lower courts have no power to overrule a Supreme Court opinion even if they suspect the high court may be inclined to do so itself. It was "hard to predict" what the Supreme Court would do should it consider the question in future, Judge Easterbrook wrote.

    Judge Easterbrook and the two other Seventh Circuit judges were all appointed by Republican presidents. Judge Easterbrook wrote that they agreed with an unsigned Second Circuit opinion that in January rejected a Second Amendment challenge to a New York state law barring possession of nunchuka sticks, a martial arts weapon. That panel, in New York, included Judge Sotomayor and two other judges appointed by President Bill Clinton.

    In San Francisco, however, a Ninth Circuit panel earlier this year held that the Second Amendment applies to state governments, even as it upheld a local ordinance banning guns from county property. One judge was appointed by a Republican president, the other two by Democrats.

    Were they to follow the Ninth Circuit's reasoning, Supreme Court "decisions could be circumvented with ease," Judge Easterbrook wrote. "They would bind only judges too dim-witted to come up with a novel argument."

    The split among the circuits increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court will step in decide the Second Amendment's application to state weapons laws.

    If confirmed to the Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor would not be bound by prior high court decisions and could provide her own analysis of the Second Amendment's application.

    I know this was a federal appeals court in Chicago, but I am assuming that because it is a federal appeals court that it can be used for any state. Not being a lawyer or very knowledgably in law per say I don’t know what effect it could have here.

    But doesn’t it seem like these judges just make @#$% up as they go along, and twist things so much that what is legal today maybe illegal tomorrow because of "opinion and not law"

    Mind you I am all for states setting there laws over the feds, but in this case

    The decision applied only to the District of Columbia, a federal enclave that is not a state. It left open whether the amendment also limits the powers of state government.

    If I understand this correctly and I stress if I understand, then let’s say a state could decide the second amendment doesn’t apply to its citizens.

    Is this line of thinking correct?







  2. #2
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    Unlikely as it would seem, perhaps the decision was made this way to force it into the SCOTUS. Since there are conflicting District Court rulings now, the SCOTUS will probably have to hear the arguments and make a difinitive ruling.
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    The decision applied only to the District of Columbia, a federal enclave that is not a state. It left open whether the amendment also limits the powers of state government.

    If I understand this correctly and I stress if I understand, then let’s say a state could decide the second amendment doesn’t apply to its citizens.

    Is this line of thinking correct?
    From what I can tell and have read the answer is Yes.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    That ruling doesn't apply to people in WA. We are in the 9th Circus Court. This topic really belongs in the Illinois forum. Or, at http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/

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

    Post imported post

    44Brent wrote:
    That ruling doesn't apply to people in WA. We are in the 9th Circus Court. This topic really belongs in the Illinois forum. Or, at http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/
    Right. The 9th circuit has already incorporated the 2nd to the state and our state constitution is much stronger and more defined when it comes to the right to bear arms.
    "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
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    36

    Post imported post



    Michael Savage refers to the 9th circuit as the 9th Jerk-it Court of Schlemiels:celebrate



  7. #7
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    And your point? They ruled in our favor.
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    36

    Post imported post

    no point other than it was funny and 90% of the time the get it wrong.....

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    The 9th Circuit ruling is more compatible with the Heller decision. Of course the 7th is going to pretend that the Nordyke decision is somehow at odds with established precedent, but the Nordyke position will ultimately win out because the established precedent it disregarded is contrary to Heller, rendering Nordyke more in line with what the Supreme Court said in 2008 than what it said an archaic, contrary decision made in 1886.

    The 7th's argument that "OMG the 9th can't disregard the SCOTUS!" is invalid because the SCOTUS already contradicted itself, and the only court ignoring that is the 7th.

    When this makes it up to the Supreme Court, it will be a hard twist of logic by which the Statist 9 (sorry, the Supreme Court) can render the Nordyke decision incompatible with Heller.

    And, statist as they may be, they arrived at the decision in Heller for good reason.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Weave wrote:
    *

    Michael Savage refers to the 9th circuit as the 9th Jerk-it Court of Schlemiels:celebrate
    Michael Savage is an idiot, and at this point the 9th has done more for the second amendment than he could ever dream of with his polemic rhetoric.

    **** what Michael Savage says.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398

    Post imported post

    I still don't understand how a State can make a more restrictive law/amendment than the 2nd amendment. They can't do that with the rest of the amendments, all they can do with those is ensure you have more rights than the constitutions says, not less. Seems kind of senseless to apply entirely different standards to just one amendment.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Saint Paris, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    346

    Post imported post

    arentol wrote:
    I still don't understand how a State can make a more restrictive law/amendment than the 2nd amendment. They can't do that with the rest of the amendments, all they can do with those is ensure you have more rights than the constitutions says, not less. Seems kind of senseless to apply entirely different standards to just one amendment.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...Bill_of_Rights)

    [The Second Amendment] has been incorporated against the states within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and has been held to not be incoporated against the states within the jurisdiction of the Second and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeals. This situation is termed a split circuit and can have a major influence on the acceptance of Certiorary by the Supreme Court. There is presently such a petition for Certiorary to the Supreme Court pending in NRA v. Chicago - the case in with the Seventh Circuit ruled against incorporation.


  13. #13
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    To judges, court precedent is more important than the Constitution. Remember, Judges believe themselves to be gods and their ruling always supersedes the Constitution.

    I believe however there is a movement to completely disregard judges and the courts if they continuously disregard the Constitution.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  14. #14
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    I believe however there is a movement to completely disregard judges and the courts if they continuously disregard the Constitution.
    Yeah, that was what FDR did.
    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

  15. #15
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    I believe however there is a movement to completely disregard judges and the courts if they continuously disregard the Constitution.
    Yeah, that was what FDR did.
    Actually, I think FDR threatened the judges if they did not disregard the Constitution in favor of his power grab. What FDR was doing was unconstitutional and the judges at first ruled against him many times, so FDR threatened to stack the court forcing the judges to acquiesce or be made inconsequential by doubling the number of justices on the court.

    These are the facts:

    The Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States. Its existence is provided for in Article III of the Constitution, although Congress is given the power to determine the size of the Court. The size of the court is set by Congress and currently consists of a Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices.

    Members of the Supreme Court are appointed for life by the President. They may be removed only by death, resignation or impeachment. The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. It may declare acts of Congress or of state governments unconstitutional and therefore invalid. The Supreme Court decides cases by a majority vote and its decisions are final.

    Franklin D. Roosevelt came into conflict with the Supreme Court during his period in office. The chief justice, Charles Hughes, had been the Republican Party presidential candidate in 1916. Herbert Hoover appointed Hughes in 1930 and had led the court's opposition to some of the proposed New Deal legislation. This included the ruling against the National Recovery Administration (NRA), the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) and ten other New Deal laws.

    On 2nd February, 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt made a speech attacking the Supreme Court for its actions over New Deal legislation. He pointed out that seven of the nine judges (Charles Hughes, Willis Van Devanter, George Sutherland, Harlan Stone, Owen Roberts, Benjamin Cardozo and Pierce Butler) had been appointed by Republican presidents. Roosevelt had just won re-election by 10,000,000 votes and resented the fact that the justices could veto legislation that clearly had the support of the vast majority of the public.

    Roosevelt suggested that the age was a major problem as six of the judges were over 70 (Charles Hughes, Willis Van Devanter, James McReynolds, Louis Brandeis, George Sutherland and Pierce Butler). Roosevelt announced that he was going to ask Congress to pass a bill enabling the president to expand the Supreme Court by adding one new judge, up to a maximum off six, for every current judge over the age of 70.

    Charles Hughes realised that Roosevelt's Court Reorganization Bill would result in the Supreme Court coming under the control of the Democratic Party. His first move was to arrange for a letter written by him to be published by Burton Wheeler, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. In the letter Hughes cogently refuted all the claims made by Roosevelt.

    However, behind the scenes Hughes was busy doing deals to make sure that Roosevelt's bill would be defeated in Congress. On 29th March, Owen Roberts announced that he had changed his mind about voting against minimum wage legislation. Hughes also reversed his opinion on the Social Security Act and the National Labour Relations Act (NLRA) and by a 5-4 vote they were now declared to be constitutional.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    I believe however there is a movement to completely disregard judges and the courts if they continuously disregard the Constitution.
    Yeah, that was what FDR did.
    That court followed the standing Supreme Court precedent. It is very old but the supreme court ruled over 100 years ago that the 2nd amendment does not bind the states. Since then the incorporation doctrine has steadily applied individual rights in the bill of rights to the states. Heller said, for the first time, that the 2nd amendment provides an individual right. The supreme court has yet to incorporate that right as against the states. The conservative court in Chicago was right to follow the standing precedent. This will be appealed and the the supremes will have the opportunity to incorporate that right.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    SpokaneIrish wrote:
    Thundar wrote:
    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    I believe however there is a movement to completely disregard judges and the courts if they continuously disregard the Constitution.
    Yeah, that was what FDR did.
    That court followed the standing Supreme Court precedent. It is very old but the supreme court ruled over 100 years ago that the 2nd amendment does not bind the states. Since then the incorporation doctrine has steadily applied individual rights in the bill of rights to the states. Heller said, for the first time, that the 2nd amendment provides an individual right. The supreme court has yet to incorporate that right as against the states. The conservative court in Chicago was right to follow the standing precedent. This will be appealed and the the supremes will have the opportunity to incorporate that right.
    Incorporation is a stalling tactic and tool of tyrants to deny us our Constitutional rights... it was used to keep slaves and it is now used to keep denying us our inalienable rights. Unless we restore our Republic and push back against them... they'll continue to make BS claims on court precedent (SCREW THE COURTS) and incorporation as if it is legitimate... tyrants the lot of 'em.

    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  18. #18
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    ChuckUFarley wrote:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124398585843379259.html

    I know this was a federal appeals court in Chicago, but I am assuming that because it is a federal appeals court that it can be used for any state. Not being a lawyer or very knowledgably in law per say I don’t know what effect it could have here.

    But doesn’t it seem like these judges just make @#$% up as they go along, and twist things so much that what is legal today maybe illegal tomorrow because of "opinion and not law"

    Mind you I am all for states setting there laws over the feds, but in this case

    The decision applied only to the District of Columbia, a federal enclave that is not a state. It left open whether the amendment also limits the powers of state government.

    If I understand this correctly and I stress if I understand, then let’s say a state could decide the second amendment doesn’t apply to its citizens.

    Is this line of thinking correct?

    No it can only be used in the states that are in the 7th Circuit. This includes Illinois, Indiana and Wisconson only.

    The Nordyke decision was in the 9th Circuit Court and incorporates the second amendment to the state and local level for Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washinton, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

    With two seperate Circuit courts coming to opposite decisions, this will be decided at SCOTUS level, eventually.

Posting Permissions

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