Printable View
I understand the 9th Circuit Court publishes its opinions within 90 days of hearing oral arguments. The Nordyke case (07-15763) was argued 2009 Jan 15, so the 90 days are just about up. Having listened to the arguments, I offer no guess as to which way the opinion will go.
I just checked Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and found nothing yet.
Don't get your hopes up...The 9th Circus is the most overturned court & probably the worst bunch of jurists in action today.
Insane Laughter! You are so correct! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by goawayfarm
Also the most liberal and activist court in the nation.
A den of fools.
The 9th Circus Kangaroo Court.
For those of us who are ignorant, what is Nordyke about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Anubis
incorporation of the 2nd Amendment for the states?
I haven't read through the case but I believe this is the direction they are hoping to take it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent47
Personally, I'm not too keen on the idea. At the federal level, the 2A seems to be a bit wishy-washy for my liking (see the Heller decision).
See Nordyke v. King - Calguns WikiQuote:
Originally Posted by miklcolt45
For those registering disapproval of the 9th, so what? Love 'em or hate 'em, the ball is literally in their court.
There's more to the second amendment than was elucidated in Heller, because Heller's scope was limited to considering the question "does the DC handgun ban violate the second amendment right?"Quote:
Originally Posted by matiki
As of now, no decision. Apr 15 is the 90th day, so there should be a result posted by 10:00 PDT.
I'm thinking its imminent as well but I paged through their decision times, and some seemed to be almost a year after the oral arguments. But 3 months seems to be the norm.
Although on a host of issues they are a circus, this particular panel will, according to many, incorporate. And from reading Heller(especially footnote 23), I don't think the current SCOTUS court would overturn them.
The opinion in Heller was that the ban was unconstitutional, but that some restrictions are reasonable. I'm happy with my State deciding what's reasonable. I don't want CA, NY, or other similar States to have any say as to what's reasonable for my State. Just my $.02.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anubis
The problem with that logic is that you then end up with a crazy quilt-work of laws across the country that the law-abiding citizen must attempt to become aware of and understand in order to remain "in compliance" with each state's laws as s/he passes through. It becomes an extremely burdensome system.Quote:
Originally Posted by matiki
Also, it is simply unconstitutional for the states to infringe on the RKBA, because the 14th Amendment has extended the protections of the Bill of Rights against the states to the same extent as the federal government--that fact just has not yet been recognized by SCOTUS with regard to the 2nd Amendment, which it will be the next time the issue is before SCOTUS.
The better structure, I believe, is as follows:
1. The 2nd Amendment is recognized to mean exactly what it says--the RKBA (which preexisted, was not created by, and is not dependent on the 2A) "shall not be infringed"--i.e., the only legitimate regulation of the RKBA are laws that restrict that right only when the exercise of the right clearly conflicts with an equal or superior right of others (e.g., violent felons or sufficiently mentally incompetent persons, because their possession of guns constitutes an actual threat to the rest of society's right to live and be secure in their persons); and
2. The 14th Amendment is recognized to mean exactly what it was intended to mean and understood by the drafter, sponsers, Congress, and ratifying states, which is that the protections established by the Bill of Rights apply against the states as well as the federal government.
The foregoing is a statement of the clearly and definitively provable correct reading of the 2A/14A. Unfortunately, with regard especially to the 2A, these Amendments have--unquestionably and demonstrably--been misread (or intentially misconstrued) for far too long by judges and politicians (as well as certain internet wannabe lawyers) who have ulterior motives, and who could not care less about actually applying the Constitution (with its Amendments) as it clearly was intended to apply. They just want to promote their personal agendas, regardless of what the "truth" is...
That's exactly right and conforms precisely to the intent of the Founders. Some get very upset that we have 50 sovereign states rather than a monolithic national government. The states are very different and what is right for Vermont should not be forced on the good people of Iowa.Quote:
Originally Posted by matiki
Despite the hopes, contortions and illogic of some, the Supreme Court has already definitively spoken on the issue.
And even after the misinformed, tortured reading of the Fourteenth Amendment by some even today, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Waite delivered the majority opinion and he was directly on point:
This opinion has never been overturned, has never been rebuked, has never been been repudiated. It is binding precedent on lower courts.Quote:
The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States.
Those are the facts no matter how often one kicks, screams, and stamps their feet.
But not to the intent of the people--including the Congress and states--who ratified the 14th Amendment, extending the protections of the BOR against the states to all Citizens of the United States. You do understand, don't you, that the Constitution actually changes when you amend it, right???Quote:
Originally Posted by SelfDefense
Yeah--130 years ago, under the influence of those states that wanted to keep blacks under their thumb and litigate away the 14th Amendment. But in the 130 years since you last had a logical thought on the issue, the courts have completely repudiated that position, and even SCOTUS in its footnote in Heller pretty much said that Cruikshank is no longer good law--it just has not been squarely before the Court yet. (I know--it's hard to think past the 1870s, let alone into the 21st Century, but try! I know you can do it!!!)Quote:
Originally Posted by SelfDefense
Aside from being flatly incorrect (the opinion has been "rebuked"--whatever that means--and repudiated dozens of times over the many decades since it was decided), as noted above, SCOTUS has openly signaled that Cruikshank is no longer good law on the issue. Sure, lower courts will still be bound by it until the issue reaches SCOTUS again--but virtually all reputable scholars recognize that the very next case in which a court applies the Cruikshank holding on the 2A/14A issue will be on a hot track up the line ultimately to SCOTUS to be overturned. Cruikshank is an anachronism that is destined for the dustheap, and soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by SelfDefense
:haha: This from the guy who likes to ignore nearly 130 years of overwhelming precedent in favor of a single, wrongly-decided case from 1876 that was influenced by those who refused to accept that they lost the civil war and that the 14th Amendment had been ratified.Quote:
Originally Posted by SelfDefense
For those unaware from previous posts, the Supreme Court opinion in Cruikshank was after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified and was well considered. Some do not want to accept reality and prefer hope and change rather than the correct reading of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has opined often on this subject and Justice Frankfurter was quite on point with his concurrent opinion in Adamson:
Some are caught up in their statist ideaology and disregard the great jurists that have opined on this subject. But hey, on the internet even a contract lawyer can pretend to be a Supreme Court Justice.Quote:
Between the incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment into the Constitution and the beginning of the present membership of the Court -- a period of seventy years -- the scope of that Amendment was passed upon by forty-three judges. Of all these judges, only one, who may respectfully be called an eccentric exception, ever indicated the belief that the Fourteenth Amendment was a shorthand summary of the first eight Amendments theretofore limiting only the Federal Government, and that due process incorporated those eight Amendments as restrictions upon the powers of the States. Among these judges were not only those who would have to be included among the greatest in the history of the Court, but -- it is especially relevant to note -- they included those whose services in the cause of human rights and the spirit of freedom are the most conspicuous in our history. It is not invidious to single out Miller, Davis, Bradley, Waite, Matthews, Gray, Fuller, Holmes, Brandeis, Stone and Cardozo (to speak only of the dead) as judges who were alert in safeguarding and promoting the interests of liberty and human dignity through law. But they were also judges mindful of the relation of our federal system to a progressively democratic society, and therefore duly regardful of the scope of authority that was left to the States even after the Civil War. And so they did not find that the Fourteenth Amendment, concerned as it was with matters fundamental to the pursuit of justice, fastened upon the States procedural arrangements which, in the language of Mr. Justice Cardozo, only those who are "narrow or provincial" would deem essential to "a fair and enlightened system of justice." Palko v. Connecticut