Defensive Carry banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
815 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Registered
Joined
·
399 Posts
Crap - the Ninth Circuit is hearing it first...

But really - if the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states, then neither do any of the others, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,469 Posts
Crap - the Ninth Circuit is hearing it first...

But really - if the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states, then neither do any of the others, right?
:congrats:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
The ninth circuit already ruled in favor of us

Crap - the Ninth Circuit is hearing it first...

But really - if the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states, then neither do any of the others, right?
The ninth already ruled in favor of gun owners. So don't bash them. The 9th ruled that the 2A provision in the BOR applies to the states.

This case is going to the Supremes because different circuits gave different rulings. Sotamayor will need to recuse herself (because she voted against incorporation--something arch conservatives should like actually), and this case will be determined by the remaining 8 justices.

Don't blame O or dems for the mess. It is conservative jurists who have used reconstruction era rulings to keep the BOR from applying to the states and to all citizens.

See about 200 threads on this subject previously with lots of hot debate.

The other rights apply to the states because the justices on the SC said they do as was the intent of the 14th amendment.

In any case, it is a complex set of issues, with complex rulings over decades and a 150 years, and totally a legal not a political matter. It has nothing to do with what O wants or doesn't want. Just as we got nothing from prior presidents either. Congress and the courts are the only place where these issues can get settled. The prez lacks the power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
631 Posts
This case is going to the Supremes because different circuits gave different rulings. Sotamayor will need to recuse herself (because she voted against incorporation--something arch conservatives should like actually), and this case will be determined by the remaining 8 justices.
Sotamayor will NOT have to recuse herself. She must do so for cases she heard as a lower court justice. However, in cases where she was not part of the process, she is free to continue her "better latina" crusade.

Nordyke has some awesome legal counsel behind it. The parties are very well represented and the issues are becoming clearer in favor of gun owners as the process continues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
399 Posts
The ninth already ruled in favor of gun owners. So don't bash them. The 9th ruled that the 2A provision in the BOR applies to the states.
That's not the way I read the article. It says that a three-judge panel ruled that 2A DOES apply to the states, but a larger Ninth Circuit panel will rehear the case.

I guess the 3 judge panel may have been part of the Ninth Circuit - the article isn't totally clear on that.

Don't blame O or dems for the mess. It is conservative jurists who have used reconstruction era rulings to keep the BOR from applying to the states and to all citizens.
Who brought up any of that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
631 Posts
That's not the way I read the article. It says that a three-judge panel ruled that 2A DOES apply to the states, but a larger Ninth Circuit panel will rehear the case.

I guess the 3 judge panel may have been part of the Ninth Circuit - the article isn't totally clear on that.
The way it works it that the 3 judges heard the case. Then, the entire panel of judges decided to hear the matter "en banc." Usually, this requires a motion by one of the parties but that is not required if the justices decided amongst themselves to rehear the matter. Which is what happened in this case.

So, it is STILL, and always has been, the 9th circuit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
Don't blame O or dems for the mess. It is conservative jurists who have used reconstruction era rulings to keep the BOR from applying to the states and to all citizens.

Actually, wouldn't the opposite be true? Especially ratification of the 14th amendments where "Equal Protection Under the Law" means that the same rights must be provided to all individuals, regardless of the laws of the no-longer Sovereign States. i.e. the BOR applies to the States, in contradiction to the desires of the Founders?!

MT
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top