Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Nordyke v King--and incorporation of 2nd Amendment

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...20/0715763.pdf

    simple question--the court ruled that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated to the individual states by the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment--how does that affect us in other parts of the US?

    I have not had time to read the entire 43 page decision, but did scan over it briefly.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    suntzu wrote:
    SNIP how does that affect us in other parts of the US?
    It don't. Binding only in the 9 Circuit.
    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.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    suntzu wrote:
    SNIP how does that affect us in other parts of the US?
    It don't. Binding only in the 9 Circuit.
    forgive me Citizen--I have had a lot going on lately-- Can this decision can be used in other circuits throughout the US, or use it in a way to try and obtain incorporation nationwide?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    suntzu wrote:
    http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...20/0715763.pdf

    the court ruled that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated to the individual states by the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment
    A lot has happened since April. That ruling is on hold.

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=225435

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    A better citation is
    Filed order (ALEX KOZINSKI): Submission is vacated pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of Maloney v. Rice, No. 08-1592, McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521, and National Rifle Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1497. [7074146] (AF)
    it avoids news 'incest' (ever deeper secondary sources).

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lancaster County, PA
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post

    We're now awaiting the outcome of the meeting on which cases the SCOTUS is granting for this term. Hopefully we will get McDonald v. Chicago and they'll hear and rule on it quickly.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    39

    Post imported post

    suntzu wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    suntzu wrote:
    SNIP how does that affect us in other parts of the US?
    It don't. Binding only in the 9 Circuit.
    forgive me Citizen--I have had a lot going on lately-- Can this decision can be used in other circuits throughout the US, or use it in a way to try and obtain incorporation nationwide?
    Lawyers often cite to out-of-circuit opinions to show how other courts are reasoning the issue and the court may look to the opinions of other circuits for guidance when making a decision, but the rulings in one circuit are not binding upon another.

  8. #8
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    VA Lawyer wrote:
    Lawyers often cite to out-of-circuit opinions to show how other courts are reasoning the issue and the court may look to the opinions of other circuits for guidance when making a decision, but the rulings in one circuit are not binding upon another.


    Now, please correct me if I am wrong (still getting an education here...lol). If the 9th Circuit rules in favor....i.e...that the 2A is incorporated via the 14th and does guarentee an Indivisual right, that ruling would apply to ALL of thelocal and state courtsunder the 9th Circuit....is that correct?
    "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

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lancaster County, PA
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post

    Technically yes, but California's courts are infamous for ignoring things they don't like and just passing it up to the highest court level they can by coming up with some twisted sophistry saying it doesn't apply.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    The incorporation that was granted via Nordyke was put on hold when the 9th Circuit Court decided to rehear Nordyke en banc.

    So for now incorporation is NOT recognized in the 9th.

    The en banc process has been put on hold until the Supreme Court decides whether or not to grant cert. to one of the cases involving incoporation in their next session.

    If they grant cert. then Nordyke will remain on hold until a decision is made at the SCOTUS level pertaining to incorporation.

    If SCOTUS rules for incorporation, then Nordyke's incorporation arguement is moot, same if SCOTUS denies incorporation as the 9th will then refer to SCOTUS already having ruled.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    BillMCyrus wrote:
    We're now awaiting the outcome of the meeting on which cases the SCOTUS is granting for this term. Hopefully we will get McDonald v. Chicago and they'll hear and rule on it quickly.
    Unfortunately, quickly for the government isn't until, i believe, june 2010.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Merrimack, New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    370

    Post imported post

    BillMCyrus wrote:
    Technically yes, but California's courts are infamous for ignoring things they don't like and just passing it up to the highest court level they can by coming up with some twisted sophistry saying it doesn't apply.
    The good news is that I recall one of the judges, I think it was Kozinski, once quipped during proceedings in the Nordyke case that he and a couple of the other judges had enough firearms to equip a small Central American country.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509

    Post imported post

    Although it's not an incorporation case (because it dealt with federal law), U.S. v. Emerson acknowledged the 2nd guarantees an individual right, not the "militia model".



Posting Permissions

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