Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: AGs File Amicus Curiae Brief Seeking Incorporation--NRA

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/lit...micusFinal.pdf

    Two-thirds of State Attorneys General File Amicus Brief Supporting Second Amendment Incorporation

    Tuesday, July 07, 2009

    Fairfax, Va. – Two-thirds of the nation’s attorneys general have filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case of NRA v. Chicago and hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This bi-partisan group of 33 attorneys general, along with the Attorney General of California in a separate filing, agrees with the NRA’s position that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms in the home for self-defense, disagreeing with the decision recently issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

    See remainder of the story here:
    NRA-ILA :: Two-thirds of State Attorneys General File Amicus Brief Supporting Second Amendment Incorporation

    California's AG is filing a separate brief also supporting incorporation:
    http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/lit...nal_Amicus.pdf


    Needless to say, Tennessee's AG is not one of the signatories. :quirky
    If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.--Samuel Adams as Candidus, Boston Gazette 20 Jan. 1772

    Veteran--USA FA
    NRA Benefactor Life
    Tennessee Firearms Association Life

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    The California AG signed off on this? Whoda thunk?

    -ljp

  3. #3
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673

    Post imported post

    Legba wrote:
    The California AG signed off on this? Whoda thunk?

    -ljp
    They are only arguing for RKBA in the home. That is still legal in CA. Thats why he's on board. If they were arguing for strict RKBA, including bearing in public, then I'm sure the CA AG would have abstained.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post



    The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is anindividual right .



  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Three cheers and a tiger for the AGs:

    Hip, hip, hurrah and Carnivore!

  6. #6
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    The briefs and Texas' press release:

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=200880

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Laveen, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    432

    Post imported post

    It really makes me mad that AZ wasn't in on this brief.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    National City, CA, ,
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    AZkopper wrote:
    Legba wrote:
    The California AG signed off on this? Whoda thunk?

    -ljp
    They are only arguing for RKBA in the home. That is still legal in CA. Thats why he's on board. If they were arguing for strict RKBA, including bearing in public, then I'm sure the CA AG would have abstained.
    Hhhmmm. Is he running for the Gov's job. Because if he is, this is a brilliant move. With one sweep, he brings the pro-guns voters to his side, yet he keeps his anti-gun voters as wellbecause of "sensible gun laws" and "guns at home". Two phrases te antis can relate to.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647

    Post imported post

    KS_to_CA wrote:
    AZkopper wrote:
    Legba wrote:
    The California AG signed off on this? Whoda thunk?

    -ljp
    They are only arguing for RKBA in the home. That is still legal in CA. Thats why he's on board. If they were arguing for strict RKBA, including bearing in public, then I'm sure the CA AG would have abstained.
    Hhhmmm. Is he running for the Gov's job. Because if he is, this is a brilliant move. With one sweep, he brings the pro-guns voters to his side, yet he keeps his anti-gun voters as wellbecause of "sensible gun laws" and "guns at home". Two phrases te antis can relate to.
    Jerry "moonbeam" Brown, the current California AG, was governor of Cali from 1975-1983. He has suggested that he may run for gov again next year.

    That guy's a real weirdo.
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Weatherford, TX
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    Huck wrote:
    KS_to_CA wrote:
    AZkopper wrote:
    Legba wrote:
    The California AG signed off on this? Whoda thunk?

    -ljp
    They are only arguing for RKBA in the home. That is still legal in CA. Thats why he's on board. If they were arguing for strict RKBA, including bearing in public, then I'm sure the CA AG would have abstained.
    Hhhmmm. Is he running for the Gov's job. Because if he is, this is a brilliant move. With one sweep, he brings the pro-guns voters to his side, yet he keeps his anti-gun voters as wellbecause of "sensible gun laws" and "guns at home". Two phrases te antis can relate to.
    Jerry "moonbeam" Brown, the current California AG, was governor of Cali from 1975-1983. He has suggested that he may run for gov again next year.

    That guy's a real weirdo.
    Jerry "Kalifornia Uber Alles" Brown? Too funny!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    AZkopper wrote:
    Legba wrote:
    The California AG signed off on this? Whoda thunk?

    -ljp
    They are only arguing for RKBA in the home. That is still legal in CA. Thats why he's on board. If they were arguing for strict RKBA, including bearing in public, then I'm sure the CA AG would have abstained.
    Yes, right now that is the only argument, but, if it SCOTUS rules in favor of incorporation all future gains will apply. If you read the opinions given in Heller, it was quite obvious that the justices thought that there is room to widen the scope if an appropriate case is brought forward.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    falcon1 wrote:
    http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/lit...micusFinal.pdf

    Two-thirds of State Attorneys General File Amicus Brief Supporting Second Amendment Incorporation

    Tuesday, July 07, 2009

    Fairfax, Va. – Two-thirds of the nation’s attorneys general have filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case of NRA v. Chicago and hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This bi-partisan group of 33 attorneys general, along with the Attorney General of California in a separate filing, agrees with the NRA’s position that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms in the home for self-defense, disagreeing with the decision recently issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

    See remainder of the story here:
    NRA-ILA :: Two-thirds of State Attorneys General File Amicus Brief Supporting Second Amendment Incorporation

    California's AG is filing a separate brief also supporting incorporation:
    http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/lit...nal_Amicus.pdf


    Needless to say, Tennessee's AG is not one of the signatories. :quirky
    Isn't this a really BAD idea for gun rights?

    It would seem to me, that if judge Sotomayor gets confirmed, and some other liberal judge is nominated and confirmed, and they both apply their whacked out "no individual right to own a gun" belief in some future case, Heller gets overturned, and all states lose their individual right to bear arms, according to the federal government.

    So , where do state constitutions apply here? Kentucky has a constitutionally protected right to bear arms already. Instead of supporting incorporation, why not just go through the process and amend state constitutions?

    This incorporation business seems too shady for me. Something else is going on here, and the state AGs may be playing into the U.N. gun ban agenda.

    Please tell me where I am wrong here.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    The Supremes rarely "change their minds" about important issues even when the count on the Court changes. Their concerns about the importance of precedent trump their own policy leanings in almost every case.

    Incorporation would not harm any rights created by state Constitutions. It would be an unqualified positive thing.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Delaware County, New York, USA
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    The onlysignificant rulingby the Supreme Court that was overturned by later Constitutional Amendments, Supreme Court cases and state and federal laws was in the case of the overturning of Dredd Scott.

    This was the horrific pre-Civil War case that relieved certain ethnic groups of their status as human beings.

    This ruling was overturned by: 1)the 13th, 14th and 15th Constitutional Amendments, 2) Landmark Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s, 3)Several Supreme Court rulings (such as Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka), and 4) A number of history-changing events such as the Little Rock integration.

    These events took the over a centuty to happen, from pre-Civil War through the Civil Rights era of the mid 20th Century (1950s, 1960s). These events were actually set in motion upon the writing of the Constitution itself, in which language upholding the institution of slavery in the United States was included in the original document.

    (There is, however, talk of overturning the ruling that upheld McCain-Fiengold, which relieved certain interest groups of their First Amendment rights.)

    As a student of history (and a pro-2A optimist) I believe that this nation will dispense of anti-self-defense/anti-self-reliance laws (aka Gun Control) the same way it dispensed of slavery; slowly, painfully, and not without a fight. This time the fight will not be on the battlefields of Antietam and Gettysburg, but in the state legislatures, the US Congress and the Supreme Court.

    The next Supreme Court case (for Incorporation).... bring it on!



  15. #15
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    What is incorporation exactly?

    If SCOTUS ever changes its mind, it's going to be in this period of unprecedented government insanity currently plaguing America. I think this incorporation business is very risky.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    Statesman wrote:
    What is incorporation exactly?

    If SCOTUS ever changes its mind, it's going to be in this period of unprecedented government insanity currently plaguing America. I think this incorporation business is very risky.
    I agree with you...I was concern about the same. I'd rather have my 2A rights safely guaranteed by my State and enjoy themin myState and other Free States, and places like DC, NY, NJ, CA, IL and alike can burn in their own hell.


    I think that might be winning the battle (now) but losing the war (later) case...

    And even if you do win this case, much like Heller it won't have impact on majority of gun owners. These places are not going to grant reciprocity with other carry permits nor they gonna go shall issue. What is the benefit for us, majority of gun owners, living in Free States,inrisking our rights byimposing our will on people who majorlydon't want it.

    Imagine it was the other way around:localities like IL, DC, NJ, NY, CA imposing their view of gun rights on places like VA, KY, AZ, MT, UT, AK, etc? People there don't like guns and prefer only criminals to be armed - let them live that way. We prefer it the other way, so we can do so. I'm a firm believer in State rights, country as a whole is too diverse and too different to be put under same exact laws....

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Delaware County, New York, USA
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    Incorporation, as I read it, is to finally declare that the 2nd Amendment applies to restrictions on state lawand not only to restrictions on laws passed by the federal government. The problem as present is that some states are worming their way around the 2A by claiming that no one ever told them it applies to them.

    I suppose they never heard of the 14th Amendment, which incorporates all rights to the state level.But then again, NYC, DC, NJ, MD, IL, and most of CA (as well as the Brady Bunch, Clintonistas, et al) never heard of most of the Constitution at all.

    Edited after I read the above post.... It is a good point, we will never change places like NYC, DC, NJ and IL. I know LEOs who WILL NOT travel through these places (armed, off-duty) even with federal law on thier side. The federal law may helpthem later,in court, but not astheir head is banging into the side of a New Jersey State Police Cruiser, with thier home-town local police credentials kicked into the weeds along I-95.

    The situation upstate NY is more precarious than most of here realize. Many counties have full carry with LEOs told to ignore the occasional OC if it is near hunting land. Not bad for NY.

    However, if the 2A community stirs the pot, and asks for more rights (how ironic)will the Democrat-dominated state legislature someday take its collective head out of its collective butt, get to work running the state, and as a side thoughtpass a bill to outlaw full carry?

    Deciding when tolose altitudeand fly under the radar sometimes has its benefits.



  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    WheelGun wrote:
    Edited after I read the above post.... It is a good point, we will never change places like NYC, DC, NJ and IL. I know LEOs who WILL NOT travel through these places (armed, off-duty) even with federal law on thier side. The federal law may helpthem later,in court, but not astheir head is banging into the side of a New Jersey State Police Cruiser, with thier home-town local police credentials kicked into the weeds along I-95.
    Did that really ever happen? If so, I'm shocked!

    The situation upstate NY is more precarious than most of here realize. Many counties have full carry with LEOs told to ignore the occasional OC if it is near hunting land. Not bad for NY.
    What is full carry?


  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Delaware County, New York, USA
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    Full carry is nothing you ever heard of in Virginia.

    It's what you would call your normal, everydaylife. In New York we have to ask permission to live a normal life.

    But then again Virginia is really part of the United States. New York can go either way...

    Full carry is what you can do whena county judge or police department decides not to put oneof several restrictions on your pistol license.

    There is a catalog of restrictions to choose from, such as 'to and from the range only'or 'to and from hunting only' or 'for business purposes only.'

    In some rural counties,such as mine, the license just says 'Restrictions: NONE'

    On the other extreme, New York City licenses say: RESTRICTED NOT FOR CARRY.

    Handgun carried in a locked box to and from the range. Must be a member of a range/club which is very expensive. To go to the range, you must have in your posession a letter from the NYPD saying you can go toyour range at such and such a time ONLY.Get anewletter for each trip to the range. Sign in and out at the range. No stops along the way, not even to pee.

    I know, its wierd.



  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    WheelGun wrote:
    Full carry is nothing you ever heard of in Virginia.

    It's what you would call your normal, everydaylife. In New York we have to ask permission to live a normal life.

    But then again Virginia is really part of the United States. New York can go either way...

    Full carry is what you can do whena county judge or police department decides not to put oneof several restrictions on your pistol license.

    There is a catalog of restrictions to choose from, such as 'to and from the range only'or 'to and from hunting only' or 'for business purposes only.'

    In some rural counties,such as mine, the license just says 'Restrictions: NONE'

    On the other extreme, New York City licenses say: RESTRICTED NOT FOR CARRY.

    Handgun carried in a locked box to and from the range. Must be a member of a range/club which is very expensive. To go to the range, you must have in your posession a letter from the NYPD saying you can go toyour range at such and such a time ONLY.Get anewletter for each trip to the range. Sign in and out at the range. No stops along the way, not even to pee.

    I know, its wierd.

    To me, full carry means not having to have a license to exercise a right, such as in Vermont or Alaska. Those are the only true "full carry" states.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    WheelGun wrote:
    Handgun carried in a locked box to and from the range. Must be a member of a range/club which is very expensive. To go to the range, you must have in your posession a letter from the NYPD saying you can go toyour range at such and such a time ONLY.Get anewletter for each trip to the range. Sign in and out at the range. No stops along the way, not even to pee.
    JESUS CHRIST!!! I'm speechless

    So how does it work for criminals then? Do they alsoget a letter from NYPD that says you can rob someone with a handgun at such and such a time ONLY and you have to sign it after being robbed? Hm... What a hard life to be a criminal there... I bet all these criminals just give up on their guns and rob using a pepper spray purchased from a licensed dealer in the city, right? Well, at least no one is getting shot...

    /Sarcasm off/

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Delaware County, New York, USA
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    In New York City, the criminals have nothing to do but shoot each other, because the good people are hiding behind triple-locked doors and alarm systems.

    Of course one could always violate the terms of a hard-earned 'premises only' license and venture outside with the handgun, carried for self defense. Few do. Not worth it.

    Caught? License revoked.

    But celebrities get full-carry permits. And they hide behind armed bodyguards and limousine windows.

    And yet the populace continues to vote Democrat or RINO. I don't understand. People get the laws they deserve.

    'Baaaa' said the sheep.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    WheelGun wrote:
    In New York City, the criminals have nothing to do but shoot each other, because the good people are hiding behind triple-locked doors and alarm systems.

    Of course one could always violate the terms of a hard-earned 'premises only' license and venture outside with the handgun, carried for self defense. Few do. Not worth it.

    Caught? License revoked.

    But celebrities get full-carry permits. And they hide behind armed bodyguards and limousine windows.

    And yet the populace continues to vote Democrat or RINO. I don't understand. People get the laws they deserve.

    'Baaaa' said the sheep.

    Thats just sad...the sheer stupidity and ignorance of sheeple just baffles me...


  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    National City, CA, ,
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    rpyne wrote:
    WheelGun wrote:
    Full carry is nothing you ever heard of in Virginia.
    To me, full carry means not having to have a license to exercise a right, such as in Vermont or Alaska. Those are the only true "full carry" states.
    Agree.

  25. #25
    Regular Member shad0wfax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,067

    Post imported post

    What bothers me about this whole notion of rights needing to be incorporated is that the right to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing, inalienable and individual right that is merely affirmed in the Bill of Rights. We don't need the 14th amendment to "incorporate" any of the first ten amendments...

Posting Permissions

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