There you go again, Gray. I allege the same preemption case as you but add the 2nd amendment. I think the Supremes are almost a lock to find application against states in McDonald, BTW. Also, the 2nd amendment DOES apply to states in the 9th Circuit thanks to Nordyke.This lawsuit in federal court is proof in what I said before in the other thread about Mr. Warden's warped perceptions.
As of this moment, the 2nd amendment does not apply to the states, and it will not apply until the McDonald case is decided. Going to federal court should ALWAYS be the last resort, where there is no RKBA provision (California), a weak/ineffective RKBA Provision (Hawaii), or where the RKBA provision of the state does not protect the possession of firearms by non-citizen resident aliens (Washington State, which was fixed by the Legislature after a federal court order, Oregon's prohibition on CHL's to non-residents of Oregon who are non-citizens).
The state case is not encumbered by the lack of applicability of the 2A to the states. The state case will proceed faster due to this fact.
Nordyke was vacated in waiting for McDonald, so I'm not sure what you mean by "thanks to Nordyke."There you go again, Gray. I allege the same preemption case as you but add the 2nd amendment. I think the Supremes are almost a lock to find application against states in McDonald, BTW. Also, the 2nd amendment DOES apply to states in the 9th Circuit thanks to Nordyke.
I'm on your side Gray, despite the fact that you keep demonstrating what a complete jerk you are.
Bob
So do you open carry?I'll put down here what I put in another thread.
I have watched these threads all afternoon. And it's a comedy.
You guys are to busy attacking and sniping each other to be united for a cause.
WA Cease Fire and the Brady group probably come here and laugh.
Half the threads on the first 2 pages have personal attacks in them.
Do you realize what this looks like to outsiders. It isn't a group united for anything, it is a bunch of keyboard jockeys to busy attacking and sniping at eachother then banding together.
It's a joke. I was talking to a new reporter about a different topic (Fraud in Security companies) and he was perusing this forum, and thought it was a joke hell even the plaintiffs in the court cases are here calling each other jerks. AND YOUR ON THE SAME SIDE.
Doesn't matter how right you are, you are also going to be judged in the court of public opinion. And right now you look like school children squabbling on the play ground.
Right on welcome to the forum, we are having a gathering here of open carriersnext Friday here in Bellingham at 6:00 at Quarter Back Pub, bring the family if you want.Ah yeah SVG I do,
Open carry for 4 years,
Concealed for 6 prior to that.
Words fail me.....Also, the 2nd amendment DOES apply to states in the 9th Circuit thanks to Nordyke.
Bob
Bob,In any event, McDonald will resolve the question, and I see nothing in the opinion of the Heller majority to suggest that the right will not be applied to the states. Given Heller, the McDonald ruling lacks suspense. The further question will be the right to "carry" as opposed to the mere right to "keep" handguns in one's home.
I wish Chan et al the best of luck with their case because we are fighting for the same outcome.
Over and Out,
Bob
I want to support you, I really do... You're talking nonsense.In any event, McDonald will resolve the question, and I see nothing in the opinion of the Heller majority to suggest that the right will not be applied to the states. Given Heller, the McDonald ruling lacks suspense. The further question will be the right to "carry" as opposed to the mere right to "keep" handguns in one's home.
I wish Chan et al the best of luck with their case because we are fighting for the same outcome.
Over and Out,
Bob
Bob,
I saw nothing in Heller that would indicate that they would incorporate the 2nd. Incorporation was not even broached during Heller because that case dealt with federal property. There was no doubt that the 2nd applied.
“With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.”
So you're brushing aside the fact that you screwed up on the research with an "In any event"? "Do not look behind the curtain, nothing to see there". You filed a federal case using the 2nd and 14th amendment after the Nordyke case was vacated, claiming that Nordyke still applied. You filed a case in the federal courts without doing proper research, nor apparently understanding the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedures respectively.In any event, McDonald will resolve the question, and I see nothing in the opinion of the Heller majority to suggest that the right will not be applied to the states. Given Heller, the McDonald ruling lacks suspense. The further question will be the right to "carry" as opposed to the mere right to "keep" handguns in one's home.