Loading ...Liberal Court Affirms President Barack Obama Is Completely Incorrect In His Assertation That States And Municipalities Can Interfere With Our Constitutional 2nd Amendment RTKBA — Even In California…
It wasn’t all that long ago when the unconstitutional and now infamous “D.C. Gun Ban” was swatted down by the SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States) in the Heller v. District Of Columbia decision where any argument against the right of any American Citizen to possess and utilize firearms to protect himself or herself against threats in their own residences. At the time, the man I voted for to be our president, Barack Hussein Obama (still no HUGE regrets) went out of his way to o-pine on the ruling by going on the record at the time to say he agreed with the SCOTUS ruling but stated “common sense” regulation of the 2nd Amendment was the right of municipalities and states to determine. OOPS.
Just today, the world’s most “liberal” (“Ninth Circus”) court according to the draft-dodging, far-rightwing talk radio host and “New Voice Of The GOP”, Rush Limbaugh has just put the “smackdown” on the Prez (hey, nobody’s perfect, correct?)…
From The SCOTUSBlog‘s Lyle Denniston (I hate doing the “copy and paste” thing but this stuff is just too damned good to leave out — read the entire piece):
“The Constitution’s protection of an individual right to have guns for personal use restricts the powers of state and local government as much as it does those of the federal government, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled Monday. The opinion by the three-judge panel can be found here. This is the first ruling by a federal appeals court to extend the Second Amendment to the state and local level. …”
(Snip!)
“… Ruling on an issue that is certain to reach the Supreme Court, the Circuit Court concluded “that the right to keep and bear arms” as a personal right has become a part of the Constitution as it applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.
That right, it said, “is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’ Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the ‘true palladium of liberty.’ …”
WOW. When I discovered this ruling a few moments ago, my first thought was “This is TRUE Liberalism with a capital “L” — where ALL Creator-granted civil liberties are important“. Bearing in mind, the Ninth Circuit Court has long been the butt of jokes from the likes of Sean Hannity, the Draft Dodger, Michael Savage (Love him, agree with him half the time believe it or not), Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and anybody else with a microphone from the “right”, this is a STUNNING RULING considering the source. Will the talking heads from the “right” be praising this Ninth Circuit Court decision tomorrow? Doubtful, but please bear their collective “IQ” in mind before we Libs go TOO hard on ‘em.
Thank you, Ninth District Court for getting one right for the first time in months. Now if you’ll just take another look at California’s Proposition 8 with those same (newly?) Constitutionally-focused eyeballs of yours, you might just grab another fan and another enemy or three.
***
See Also: Out Of The Binjo Ditch; Cato@Liberty; Hot Air; TownHall; The Moderate Voice
My GAWD!!!! The 9th actually UPHELD the individual right to keep arms! Satan must be selling ice skates.
On the other hand, it only upheld a strict interpretation of Heller: “Thus, the Circuit Court refused to strike down an Alameda County ordinance that makes it a crime to bring onto county property a gun or ammunition, or to possess them on that property. A county supervisor who sponsored the ordinance cited “a rash of gun violence” in an apparent reference to the school shootings in the late 1990s, including the one at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo”
and
“the Circuit Court concluded that the right as interpreted by the Justices is limited to “armed self-defense” in the home.”
So a small step in the right direction. This may allow us in CA to get rid of some of the Byzantine laws we have about “safe guns” and such. (a raven or jennings could pass, but Kimber didn’t the first go aroung).
LMFAO, Joe!!! In your capacity of the disenfranchised Californian, I couldn’t wait to see your opinion on this one. You did not disappoint
I think it was one astronaut that said, “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” So, maybe we can turn this around to say, “That’s one small step for gun owners, one giant leap for the 2nd amendment.” One can hope, I suppose.
Hopefully other courts will agree and we can all finally stop worrying about people trying to take away our constitutional right to own a gun.
The hardest part of taking down a brick wall is getting that first small hole in it. This incorporation of the 2nd to the states under the 14th may just do that.
see: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/second-amendment-extended/
and for the full text:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/nordyke-ca-4-20-09.pdf
Not as good as it could have been, but not near as bad as it could have been either. Now maybe we have an opeing to get rid of some of the Byzantine gun laws we have here in CA – so bad that if you ask 6 different people in the CADOJ about something you are likely to get a dozen answers, all different.
Obviously, the Pod People have replaced the justices
Aside: Gun Toting Liberal On Ca. Gun Ruling » Pirate’s Cove // Apr 21, 2009 at 8:37 AM
[...] Gun Toting Liberal: Liberal Court Affirms President Barack Obama Is Completely Incorrect In His Assertation That States And Municipalities Can Interfere With Our Constitutional 2nd Amendment RTKBA — Even In California… Sphere: Related Content If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds. Don’t forget to Blogroll Pirate’s Cove! addthis_pub = ‘wteach’; addthis_logo = ‘http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/wteach/pirate/addthis.jpg’; addthis_logo_background = ‘EFEFFF’; addthis_logo_color = ’666699′; addthis_brand = ‘Pirate’s Cove’; addthis_options = ‘favorites, email, digg, delicious, fark, newsvine, technorati, facebook, google, live, more’; This entry was written by William Teach and posted on at 8:34 am and filed under 2nd Amendment, Asides. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a Comment or Leave a Trackback [...]
I just had a horrid thought – what if the 3 judges of the 9th Circus KNOW that theirs is the most overturned Court in the Republic? Maybe they are counting on it hitting the USSC on the basis of incorporation, and having it overturned. Hmmm….
Alameda can’t appeal – they won. Nordyke won’t appeal the incorporation part of the ruling. MAYBE we are OK.
Sorry, but I disagree. I’m squarely in the middle (shocker!) on the Second Amendment and gun rights. I do not believe in outright bans, but I do not believe that restrictions such as waiting periods, background checks, and registries are unreasonable. In fact, I believe them to be necessary for the protection and security of citizens. I guess that puts me in mild agreement with the president.
After all, the Second Amendment states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” and not “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be made inconvenient.” This also overlooks the first portion of the amendment, which states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” Note the words “well regulated.” Also note that it’s referring to the security of the country, which some would argue limits the remainder of this amendment to a government militia or military and/or law enforcement. (I do not agree with the last part.)
I know you like your guns. I was raised by a cop who trained his fellow cops (and his daughter) on the range. I’m a bit rusty, but I wouls speculate that I’m on par with most military snipers. That being said, I do not currently own a gun and don’t plan to unless I decide to start competing. I just don’t feel like I need one. And at the same time, if a guy has a well-established violent criminal past, I don’t mind if it takes me a few more days to get my hunting rifle or whatever if it makes it just a tad more difficult for Tim McVeigh: Part II to get his.
All that being said, I’ve pulled my NRA membership. They’re starting to get on my nerves. They call me nonstop and give live “surveys” with “push poll” questions which automatically make me think that they believe I’m stupid. I told the last person I talked to that if they don’t stop, I’ll be voting Democrat out of spite for the next 10 years minimum.
It’s only a matter of time until the left wingnuts figure out that, while they can’t ban the sale of hanguns, there is nothing in the Constitution that mandates the sale of ammunition. While there are many Americans who are more than capable of recycling their own casings, that number likely is lower than the number of Americans who don’t. It’s like Quaaludes – if you can’t get rid of the “problem,” get rid of one of the ingredients.
OK, I can go with background checks. But waiting periods? To what purpose? Why shold a woman who has a violent estrange ex husband or boyfriend have to wait to get protection for herself and her family? Or will waving the TRO in his face send him scurring away when he shows up to beat her to death?
Registration? Again, to what purpose? How does registration make it any safer? Will it make the firearm not function is used in a crime? Will it send out a radio tracking signal? No, that is a feel good measure. And, a felon in posession of a firearm CAN NOT BE REQUIRED TO REGISTER IT. That is law on the books. It would violate his 5th amendment rights. So it is a restricton that applies ONLY to the honest citzen. Clearly a violation of the equal protection clause.
Alabama cites the purpose clause, and suggests that because there is a purpose clasue it must be limited to that, and since that refers to a militia, then it must be a corporate right limitied to the militia only (which at the time it was written was the entire body politic, not the NG or Army). But then why did the framers not just say “The right of the state to keep and arm a militia shall not be infringed”? Why specify “the right of the people?” (by the way this reasoning has been debunked time and again by both legal and literary scholars) And why, in every other place in the BoR when it mentions “the right of the people” does it always mean an individual right? If you don’t think the framers knew the difference between the State and the People, read the 9th & 10th Amendments. It is very clear that they knew exactly the difference, and also the differnece between powers and rights.
Now, the Constitution, including the amendments is consisitant. Otherwise it will fall apart. It has been noted that there is a purpose clause in the 2nd. But there is also a purpose clause in the 1st, although it is often ignored. From the First Amendment: ” or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
So, if we apply the collectiveist theory; that the purpose clause in the 2nd protects a right of the states rather than a right of the people, and applies ONLY to members of the militia, that being the only purpose stated it is the only purpose protected; to the 1st, then the ONLY protected PEACEABLE (how often THAT gets overlooked when the progressives throw a riot) assembly is one that directly results in a petition for redress of grievances. And we could extend that petition clause to also cover “Congress shall make no law (snip of religion clause) abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;”. AFter all, it must be consistant. So, since there is only one reason, then there are no other protected assemblies, or pubication, or speech. So the only things that the 1st protects are things that produce a petition for redress of grievances.
Exactly — background checks are cool — police can do it instantly and so should the gun shops and gun shows. Waiting periods have, indeed, in fact, caused needless victims to perish. I understand the waiting period is supposed to be a “cooling down” period but at the VERY least there should be an instant waiver process for those in immediate danger who can show there is more than enough reason for them to feel their lives and/or property are in IMMEDIATE danger. Even that would be a compromise on my part but one I’d be willing to live with…
William — Appreciate the linkie-luv, Sir and I told you so on your own interesting and entertaining site
Thanks again…
Just as a sidebar note… Totally different subject. Obama changed his thoughts on prosecuting people in the Bush Admin on torture issues.
And yes I am glad the 9th backed the 2nd ammendment
Welcome, GTL! And I am with you on background checks and the waiting period.
As far as bullets go, the Obama admin has ended the program where expended military brass will be sold to remanufacturers (http://www.theshootist.net/2009/03/dod-ends-sale-of-expended-military.html)
Step one in disarming lawful citizens. My first, and only gun, is a Walther P22, bought it right after the election. I am having a tough time getting the high velocity ammo I like, and the P22 is touchy. Without the good stuff, I got lots of jams. With the stuff I like, can go though 200 or more and still no jams. Haven’t been able to shoot for a while now, every time I go to the range, just crap .22 longs.
I heard that, Mat — blogged about it and linked to ya, of course
William — I hear ya. I can’t find .380 or .32 Corbon ANYWHERE around here!!! My dad likes my Colt Pocketlite .380 because it’s light and doesn’t print and nobody can order one around here with a firm promise date. It’s really PI$$ING ME OFF!!!
I’m tempted to go out and get a higher caliber weapon before they get really expensive, and get some ammo and just hold on to it. Something in a 10mm but compact. Of course, it is getting really difficult to get the ammo.
Linked ya up again in a post I did for my site, Stop The ACLU, and Right Wing News.
Steve, I’d consider ammunition to be grouped in with guns as protected by the Second Ammendment.
Joe, I was grouping the waiting periods and registration in with the background checks, as they can take a few days to do in SOME cases– as in something done on a state-wide background check may later flag something in the federal system, and yes these things do happen. It’s rare, but it does happen. No, it doesn’t stop the gun from being used in a crime, but it does give investigators a nice starting point to go with. Not every crime is committed with stolen firearms, and not every crime is committed by a career criminal.
Also, you kind of just answered your own question on the militia bit. At the time the people WERE the militia.
And as a previously battered woman, I can tell you that a handgun was the last thing I needed at the time as I was jumpy and not in my right mind. Having police protection was far better. Not only were guns available, but there was a round-the-clock shift of clear-thinking and trained professionals. I know some folks are apprehensive about the use of police protection, but you can get it. That’s what they’re there for. That’s what your tax dollars are paying for. If you truly feel like your life is in danger– use it.
I did forget this one earlier, but I also think you should be licensed and trained to use a gun before purchasing it. Too many accidents happen. Perhaps this goes against the personal responsibility thing, but then it’s not always the purchaser who gets hurt.
Another issue I forgot to bring up is the possibility of police officers being outgunned. We did have an issue like this in Birmingham a few years ago where three officers died in the process of trying to serve a warrant– one of them being a close friend of my father’s. The Birmingham police officers petitioned and asked to be allowed to carry their own equivallent arms. They were offering to purchase them themselves (on a cop’s salary, I might add) and would have been properly trained. The weapons would have also stayed in the back of the cars unless absolutely necessary. Not only was their request denied, but there has been some controversy over them using tasers as well. What are your thoughts on these situations and what solutions would you offer?
William — Thanks, thanks and thanks again, my friend ! ! !
I fail to see how the issue of the police being out-gunned is relevant.
We do NOT live in a police state in which the default assumption is that only the government should have a monopoly on force. And as a man whose family’s recent history has included living in areas in which the police often abused their monopoly on force. My grandma as a young woman in Georgia was subject to rather indecent harassment from police and so developed a life-long habit of carrying a gun in her glove compartment. Sure times have changed over the decades, but I’ve lived in cities in which there was significant police corruption.
A balance of force is necessary for liberty, the police and government should be armed in order to protect us. The people should also be armed as a deterrent against abuse. God forbid than honest law enforcers should ever be harmed in the course of duty, but the potential of an armed populace is a potential, potent, check against corruption.
The opinion of many decent and sheltered individuals that Police are above blame, by necessity, is based on very narrow life experiences. An armed police and armed LAW ABIDING and decent population are both necessary and form the most potent defense against criminality possible.
AMEN. Maybe it’s just because I live in a VERY red state called “Alabama” but I haven’t met a law enforcement officer down here yet (on a personal basis) who is not only supportive of, but vigilant about the issue of concealed carry by law abiding Citizens. I’ve heard way too many of ‘em simply say “Hey, we can’t be everywhere at the same time”…
Hon, I’m not suggesting by any stretch that either scenario is the case where cops should hold a monopoly on force or where no civilian should carry concealed weapons. I’d also like you to show me where I even suggested that there was no such thing as a crooked cop or that they would be above blame in any way. If either of you can show me where I said or even suggested any of those things, I’d be much obliged. Otherwise, I’d very much appreciate the both of you not trying to insinuate that I did.
What I DID say (and yes it was slightly off-topic) was that there are some situations where officers have been out-gunned by criminals (NOT “law-abiding citizens”) carrying assault weapons and armor piercing rounds, and they have died as a result. And I stated that the cops in Birmingham were not only not allowed to arm themselves properly but that they were not even so much as allowed to use a taser without special permission.
Now working on the assumption that not every cop is a militant jackass and that most of them might actually want to protect and serve the public… And considering that I’m the child of such a cop who used to pray every night that her daddy would come home safely… And considering that my father married a woman who’s father was a cop who didn’t make it home one night… And considering that I’d appreciate you not lumping either of them into a category with a few bad apples… What solutions to that problem would you recommend?
In California, background checks, waiting periods, fees, and tests are required to exercise the Second Amendment. Maybe there should be background checks, waiting periods, fees, and tests given to exercise the First Amendment, too?