AGs File Amicus Curiae Brief Seeking Incorporation--NRA

falcon1 · Jul 7, 2009

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

Legba · Jul 7, 2009

imported post

The California AG signed off on this? Whoda thunk?

-ljp

AZkopper · Jul 7, 2009

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.

R a Z o R · Jul 7, 2009

imported post

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is anindividual right .

The Donkey · Jul 7, 2009

imported post

Three cheers and a tiger for the AGs:

Hip, hip, hurrah and Carnivore!

cato · Jul 7, 2009

imported post

The briefs and Texas' press release:

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

Notso · Jul 7, 2009

imported post

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

KS_to_CA · Jul 8, 2009

imported post

AZkopper wrote:

Legba wrote:

The California AG signed off on this? Whoda thunk?

-ljp

Click to expand...

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.

Huck · Jul 8, 2009

imported post

KS_to_CA wrote:

AZkopper wrote:

Legba wrote:

The California AG signed off on this? Whoda thunk?

-ljp

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Squid13 · Jul 8, 2009

imported post

Huck wrote:

KS_to_CA wrote:

AZkopper wrote:

Legba wrote:

The California AG signed off on this? Whoda thunk?

-ljp

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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!

rpyne · Jul 8, 2009

imported post

AZkopper wrote:

Legba wrote:

The California AG signed off on this? Whoda thunk?

-ljp

Click to expand...

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.

Statesman · Jul 9, 2009

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.

The Donkey · Jul 9, 2009

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.

WheelGun · Jul 10, 2009

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!

Statesman · Jul 10, 2009

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.

Chaingun81 · Jul 10, 2009

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....

WheelGun · Jul 10, 2009

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.

Chaingun81 · Jul 10, 2009

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?

WheelGun · Jul 10, 2009

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.

rpyne · Jul 10, 2009

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.

AGs File Amicus Curiae Brief Seeking Incorporation--NRA

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

New member

Newbie

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member