• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Nordyke v King--and incorporation of 2nd Amendment

suntzu

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
1,230
Location
The south land
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?
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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).
 

BillMCyrus

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
118
Location
Lancaster County, PA
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.
 

VA Lawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
39
Location
, Virginia, USA
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.
 

MarlboroLts5150

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
407
Location
San Antonio
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?
 

BillMCyrus

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
118
Location
Lancaster County, PA
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.
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
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.
 

marine77

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
167
Location
, ,
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. :banghead:
 

mvpel

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
371
Location
Merrimack, New Hampshire, USA
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.
 
Top