Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: High-Profile Gun Rights Case Inches Toward Supreme Court

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Macomb County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    August 25, 2009 2:30 AM
    High-Profile Gun Rights Case Inches Toward Supreme Court
    By Declan McCullagh.

    A federal appeals court on September 24 will hear a high-profile gun rights case that's a leading candidate to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is likely to decide whether the Second Amendment's guarantee of a right to "keep and bear arms" restricts only the federal government -- the current state of affairs -- or whether it can be used to strike down intrusive state and local laws too.

    A three-judge panel ruled that the Second Amendment does apply to the states. But now a larger Ninth Circuit panel will rehear the case, a procedure reserved only for issues of exceptional importance, which means the earlier decision could be upheld or overruled.

    Two other circuits have said the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, a legal term known as "incorporation." If the Ninth Circuit's en banc panel continues to disagree with its peers, the Supreme Court almost certainly would step in.

    The Ninth Circuit case involves Russell and Sallie Nordyke, who run a gun show business that would like to rent Alameda County's fairgrounds (the county includes Oakland and is across the bay from San Francisco). After being blocked, they sued. The author of the ordinance in question, then-county supervisor Mary King, actually claimed such shows are nothing but "a place for people to display guns for worship as deities for the collectors who treat them as icons of patriotism."

    The hearing is set for 10 a.m. PT in the federal courthouse at 95 Seventh Street in San Francisco.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932

    Post imported post

    I just did a quick bit of research, and it is interesting that the states originally were not required to follow the US constitution, but over the years the supreme court decided to "incorporate" most of the bill of rights which forces each state to comply with them.

    according to wiki: Provisions that the Supreme Court either has refused to incorporate, or whose possible incorporation has not yet been addressed, are the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the Fifth Amendment right to an indictment by a grand jury, and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil lawsuits.



    so.....If the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed by state or federal law......what does that mean to you and me?Will michigan gun laws change? specifiallylaws that restrict the carrying of firearms?

    I love this country!
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will watch the watchmen?)

    I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of posts should be construed as legal advice.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Post imported post

    lapeer20m wrote:
    I just did a quick bit of research, and it is interesting that the states originally were not required to follow the US constitution, but over the years the supreme court decided to "incorporate" most of the bill of rights which forces each state to comply with them.

    according to wiki: Provisions that the Supreme Court either has refused to incorporate, or whose possible incorporation has not yet been addressed, are the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the Fifth Amendment right to an indictment by a grand jury, and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil lawsuits.



    so.....If the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed by state or federal law......what does that mean to you and me?Will michigan gun laws change? specifiallylaws that restrict the carrying of firearms?

    I love this country!
    I've heard the 3rd hasn't been either, because nobody has had a soldier in their house without their consent.
    Rand Paul 2016

  4. #4
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    Yooper wrote:
    I've heard the 3rd hasn't been either, because nobody has had a soldier in their house without their consent.
    My guess it that the US military has probably become much larger and more powerful than the founders would have liked. It's an easy assumption to come to when you consider that they said the militia, not the military, is the requirement to keep a state free.

    However one chooses to look at it, it's not exactly much of an issue when there are military bases within easy driving distance of pretty much every urban part of the country.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    538

    Post imported post

    Regarding 2A, this issue has haunted me indefinitely. This won't go over well with many here, but I tend to agree that the Bill of Rights exists to protect the state citizens from the federal government. I've tried, but I just can't make the leap in logic that's required to say that the federal constitution would protect the state citizens from the state governments. Frankly, I don't think Jefferson, Adams, etc. were concerned that this would ever be an issue within the state governments because, well, they already had this protection in their own state constitutions.

    Instead, I believe they were concerned that a strong federal government might try to undermine the state constitution if the state protected the RKBA and the .gov legislated to forbid it. In this case, the 2A would come into play and protect the state citizens from the federal government.

    Furthermore, I believe the founders recognized and respected the various customs and practices within the different states and in no way were attempting to create a uniform one-size-fits-all template to which the states themselves were expected to adhere. They were left to mind their own state business as they saw fit.

    Frankly, Michigan's constitution affords the same stated protection of the right to keep and bear arms that is found in the US Const. What is the need for incorporation? If our state reps attempt to eliminate RKBA, I expect a large gathering on the capital steps to throw the bums out! Now, why other states have infringed on RKBA is beyond me, but that's their own business to deal with. I would say their political process has failed them. For such states, incorporation would certainly help turn this around.

    Having said that, and because most of the other BOR amendments have been incorporated, I would love to see the 2A incorporated as well.



  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    538

    Post imported post

    mikestilly wrote:
    The author of the ordinance in question, then-county supervisor Mary King, actually claimed such shows are nothing but "a place for people to display guns for worship as deities for the collectors who treat them as icons of patriotism."
    Drive-by comment #1: If gun shows were truely a question of ideology, as suggested by Ms. King, then her prohibition could be construed as an attack on the show organizer's first amendment rights.


    lapeer20m wrote:
    so.....If the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed by state or federal law......what does that mean to you and me?Will michigan gun laws change? specifiallylaws that restrict the carrying of firearms?

    I love this country!
    Drive-by comment #2: If incorporation happens for 2a, I would think you could challenge any number of MI firearm laws in federal court.


    Yooper wrote:
    I've heard the 3rd hasn't been either, because nobody has had a soldier in their house without their consent.
    Drive-by comment #3: I would think that this would have to be a state soldier quartered in your home and then challenged in federal court. It seems to me that a federal soldier quartered in your home could already be challenged in federal court, i.e. that this is already the proper jurisdiction. Know any state soldiers?


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    538

    Post imported post

    Michigander wrote:
    My guess it that the US military has probably become much larger and more powerful than the founders would have liked. It's an easy assumption to come to when you consider that they said the militia, not the military, is the requirement to keep a state free.

    However one chooses to look at it, it's not exactly much of an issue when there are military bases within easy driving distance of pretty much every urban part of the country.
    Drive-by comment #4: Michigander, riddle me this: if the US Constitution only authorizes the Congress to raise an army for no longer than a period of two years, exactly how is it that 1) the military HAS grown so large, and that 2) we now have a standing army?

    Honestly, I don't have an answer. :?


    Article I, Section 8 (excerpt):
    "The Congress shall have power...To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; "

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut....html#section8


  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    CoonDog wrote:
    SNIP Regarding 2A, this issue has haunted me indefinitely. This won't go over well with many here, but I tend to agree that the Bill of Rights exists to protect the state citizens from the federal government. I've tried, but I just can't make the leap in logic that's required to say that the federal constitution would protect the state citizens from the state governments...
    I think you can be unhaunted.

    The states ratified the 14th Amendment, which says in relevant part:

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (emphasis added)

    The senator who introduced it to the US Senate made expressreference the RKBA in his speech to the Senate.

    The 2A is incorporated. It has been all along. The government has been playing monkey business in pretending it is not.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Post imported post

    CoonDog wrote:
    Regarding 2A, this issue has haunted me indefinitely. This won't go over well with many here, but I tend to agree that the Bill of Rights exists to protect the state citizens from the federal government.
    You are correct. BUT our founding fathers DID include a way to amend the constitution if need be. They found the need, and passed the 14th amendment to the Constitution.

    Section 1 of it reads: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


    After reading that, at least to me, it appears like it would be within the scope of the amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights to apply to the states.
    Rand Paul 2016

  10. #10
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Post imported post

    Citizen beat me to it....barely :P
    Rand Paul 2016

  11. #11
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    I hope so. This is getting crazy...fighting all these laws one state at a time. But, then again, thats what they want, hoping we'll just get tired of it all and give in.
    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

  12. #12
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Post imported post

    MarlboroLts5150 wrote:
    I hope so. This is getting crazy...fighting all these laws one state at a time. But, then again, thats what they want, hoping we'll just get tired of it all and give in.
    If we would have gotten tired, we'd be stuck with 1/2 dozen shall issue states.
    Rand Paul 2016

  13. #13
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    True That.
    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ludington, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    39

    Post imported post

    CoonDog wrote:
    Michigander wrote:
    My guess it that the US military has probably become much larger and more powerful than the founders would have liked. It's an easy assumption to come to when you consider that they said the militia, not the military, is the requirement to keep a state free.

    However one chooses to look at it, it's not exactly much of an issue when there are military bases within easy driving distance of pretty much every urban part of the country.
    Drive-by comment #4: Michigander, riddle me this: if the US Constitution only authorizes the Congress to raise an army for no longer than a period of two years, exactly how is it that 1) the military HAS grown so large, and that 2) we now have a standing army?

    Honestly, I don't have an answer. :?


    Article I, Section 8 (excerpt):
    "The Congress shall have power...To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; "

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut....html#section8
    It simply means that every two years they have to re-vote the appropriations for the (money) military.

    But let's not get off topic.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    538

    Post imported post

    Citizen and Yooper. All I can say is 'Wow', that's quite an eye opener. Thanks for posting the info on the 14th Amendment.


  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lincoln Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    51

    Post imported post

    Fishous wrote:
    CoonDog wrote:
    Michigander wrote:
    My guess it that the US military has probably become much larger and more powerful than the founders would have liked. It's an easy assumption to come to when you consider that they said the militia, not the military, is the requirement to keep a state free.

    However one chooses to look at it, it's not exactly much of an issue when there are military bases within easy driving distance of pretty much every urban part of the country.
    Drive-by comment #4: Michigander, riddle me this: if the US Constitution only authorizes the Congress to raise an army for no longer than a period of two years, exactly how is it that 1) the military HAS grown so large, and that 2) we now have a standing army?

    Honestly, I don't have an answer. :?


    Article I, Section 8 (excerpt):
    "The Congress shall have power...To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; "

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut....html#section8
    It simply means that every two years they have to re-vote the appropriations for the (money) military.

    But let's not get off topic.
    Why would the part after it state, "To provide and maintain a Navy."

    "Raising" would imply that it would not be a standing army.

    "Maintaining" would imply a "standing" (or "floating," if you will) Navy.

    If a "standing army" were the intent, I propose that the term "raise" would not have been used in the first case, and "maintain" would not have been used in the second. Add to that the limited time to "support" a "raised" army and I believe it is clear that our founders did not envision the kind of "standing army" we have today. Remember, when they wrote the Constitution, each State was a sovereign one.

    And back on topic, each State should still be a sovereign one and each state should have their own say on many issues. However, the RKBA is a sovereign individual right and no State, nor the Federal Government, should be allowed to infringe upon it.


  17. #17
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Post imported post

    CoonDog wrote:
    Citizen and Yooper. All I can say is 'Wow', that's quite an eye opener. Thanks for posting the info on the 14th Amendment.
    If you do some research, you can find out exactly what the founding fathers intended when they wrote the constitution. It doesn't take a constitutional scholar to figure it out.

    Another example..... When they wrote that congress could "regulate" interstate commerce, they were ENCOURAGING interstate commerce, and not allow states to tax the imports from other states. No where is it mentioned that their intention was to give the federal government control over interstate commerce.

    Yet every law congress passes they throw in that it affects interstate commerce. Heck, with the Montana Firearms Freedoms act, and a same law passed in TN, the feds are still claiming jurisdiction. But read what the founding fathers said about interstate commerce and it's clear that most of our national laws are unconstitutional.
    Rand Paul 2016

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932

    Post imported post

    I sure wish someone would go all the way to the supreme court and argue the word
    "infringed."

    especially powerful since the sc decided that an INDIVIDUAL has the rtkba.

    How much more plain could the language be?

    "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    Imagine the impact this wold have on American's lives. Not just us free citizens, but also the ones that are imprisoned for firearm possession charges.
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will watch the watchmen?)

    I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of posts should be construed as legal advice.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    CoonDog wrote:
    Citizen and Yooper. All I can say is 'Wow', that's quite an eye opener. Thanks for posting the info on the 14th Amendment.
    You're welcome. You can find out more on top-tier 2A blogs and legal blogs.

    Just google key wordsBill of Rightsand incorporation.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    As I see it, it is simply like this:

    The Bill of Rights enumerate rights of the People. The People are citizens of their respective States. Since the People maintain the rights enumerated in the BOR, then no State shall abridge or infringe upon them.

    No State can make it illegal for the press to report freely. No State can make it illegal for People to speak freely. No State can sponsor, or prohibit the free exercise of, religion. No State can make it illegal to keep and bear arms. Etc, etc, etc.

    Further driving this point, there is a reason the Separation of Church and State doctrine exists. I'm paraphrasing here, but the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law establishing religion...". The problem with the particular wording of "Congress" is that it left the door open for individual States to establish religion. The anecdote was the establishment of the Separation of Church and State doctrine... it was meant to say, "Oops... Congress NOR STATES shall make no law establishing religion..."

    To me, this clearly demonstrates that the rights enumerated in the federal Constitution belong to the PEOPLE and not to the States.

    I'm all for State rights. But at the end of the day, I'm for the PEOPLE'S rights first. Afterall, it is the People who are meant to control their States... and the States, collectively known as the United States, who are meant to govern our collective affairs.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932

    Post imported post

    it looks like the op case will not be the one making it to the scotus, but macdonald v city of chicago IS going to be heard by the court.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-19954-Salt...hicago-gun-ban

    This is very very exciting! It seems that the court will have to incorporate the 2nd amendment. It is possible that they could choose not to, but it just doesn't seem likely.

    Things are moving in the right direction if you ask me!

    the heller decision stated that "individuals have the right to keep and bear arms"

    now the macdonald case will force the states to respect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms

    Next, we need a case that challenges the word "infringed"
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will watch the watchmen?)

    I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of posts should be construed as legal advice.

Posting Permissions

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