BANES' BLOG - READ IT !!!!!!!!!!!

[Hazcat]

9th Circuit upheld the Heller decision and said it applies to the states!!!!!!!!

[tombogan03884]

Wish the ruling had not come out of the most over turned court in the country, But I'm glad it came out !

[Hazcat]

Wish the ruling had not come out of the most over turned court in the country, But I'm glad it came out !

Actually, Tom I rather like that it did. It shows that now, even the most liberal court in the land sees it as a fundamental right.  Let it be appealed.  We will win again!

[tombogan03884]

 Plus is that the most liberal court in the land admits the 2nd A is a Right, Minus is that they are notorious for procedural FU's, so it could be overturned for that. But it is not a problem unless someone challenges it.

[CurrieS103]

Plus is that the most liberal court in the land admits the 2nd A is a Right, Minus is that they are notorious for procedural FU's, so it could be overturned for that. But it is not a problem unless someone challenges it.

Feinstein and Holder?

[Sponsor]

[ericire12]

Read the court's opinion before your celebrate (notice the use of the term "sensitive place" and the importance of public places being deemed "county property").
[/b]

    Heller tells us that the Second Amendment’s guarantee revolves around armed self-defense. If laws make such self-defense impossible in the most crucial place — the home — by rendering firearms useless, then they violate the Constitution.

    But the Ordinance before us is not of that ilk. It does not directly impede the efficacy of self-defense or limit self-defense in the home. Rather, it regulates gun possession in public places that are County property…

    The Nordykes argue that the Ordinance is overbroad because it covers more than such sensitive places. They list the areas covered: “open space venues, such as County-owned parks, recreational areas, historic sites, parking lots of public buildings . . . and the County fairgrounds.” The only one of these that seems odd as a “sensitive place” is parking lots. The rest are gathering places where high numbers of people might congregate. That is presumably why they are called “open space venues.” Indeed, the fairgrounds itself hosts numerous public and private events throughout the year, which a large number of people presumably attend; again, the Nordykes’ gun shows routinely attracted about 4,000 people. Although Heller does not provide much guidance, the open, public spaces the County’s Ordinance covers fit comfortably within the same category as schools and government buildings.

Here is further commentary worth reading:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/20/ninth-circuit-second-amendment-also-protects-gun-owners-from-state-law/

Translation: You may have a Second Amendment right to defend your home but you have no Second Amendment right to concealed carry, especially in densely populated “sensitive places.” In fact, one of the Democratic judges wrote a separate opinion today specifically to emphasize that “important governmental interests will justify reasonable regulation of rifles and handguns, and the problem for our courts will be to define, in the context of particular regulation by the states and municipalities, what is reasonable and permissible and what is unreasonable and offensive to the Second Amendment.” The legal question going forward is how broadly courts will interpret the “sensitive places” exception; given the number of lefty judges we’re in store for from The One, I’m guessing darned broadly. All of which means that we’re trending towards a narrow understanding of the Second Amendment that limits gun rights to handguns inside the home (and conceivably a limit on how many you can own?). That’s better than nothing, but not much better.

Other judge opinion referenced above:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_04_19-2009_04_25.shtml#1240249775










-------->The only thing that we have going for us right now is the fact that the number of gun owners in this country is growing exponentially.

[blackwolfe]

I read Michael's blog on this and ended up reading up some of the other links, blogs, and comments.  Maybe this is old news, but I came across that Harold Koh is bHo's nominee for State Department legal advisor and a former Assistant Secretary of State.  Harold Koh is the author of "A World Drowning in Guns"  71 Fordham Law Review (2003).  This will give you an example about world gun control this administration will seek.
http://law.fordham.edu/publications/articles/500flspub11111.pdf

It's fairly long and dry reading.  An interesting tidbit I found was at the bottom of page 5 about a 1997 shipment of M-2 automatic rifles left in Vietnam traveled the world for 20 years before ending up in Mexico.  This information came from a report titled "The U.S. Arms Both Sides of Mexico's Drug War" as indicated by footnote No.18. I tried to post it here, but was technically challenged.  I'd like to read the rest of the report about the US Arming both sides of the Mexican drug war, maybe we could find the truth about the Iron River Of Guns flowing to Mexico.

[tombogan03884]

From the Tactical wire today: www.tacticalwire.com
Around the Water Cooler
By Rich Grassi

A three judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals announced the opinion in Nordyke v. King on Monday. Nordyke is a case out of Alameda County where the county passed an ordinance forbidding firearms on county property, specifically a location where gunshows had been held. This was done because County Supervisor King didn't like gunshows. This was indicated by her statements that she had "been trying to get rid of gun shows on Country property" for "about three years," but she had "gotten the run around from spineless people hiding behind the constitution, and been attacked by aggressive gun toting mobs on right wing talk radio."

At a press conference, King also said that the County should not "provide a place for people to display guns for worship as deities for the collectors who treat them as icons of patriotism." (Both quoted statements are taken from the decision.)

The case having dragged on for years, much of the opinion is tied up in explaining the history, the arguments and decisions past. The bottom line is that plaintiffs wanted the Court of Appeals to examine the case in light of the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment is one of those "pre-existing rights" (that is, human rights that predate the existence of the Constitution) that requires incorporation under the 14th Amendment to be applied against state governments of behalf of citizens.

There are interesting statements made in the opinion. I will run only one:

We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear
arms 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." Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their
independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a
recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later.
The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our
birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental,
that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception
of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are
therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and
applies it against the states and local governments.
Beautiful words, all. I know I couldn't have written it as well.

So, the plaintiffs won, right? Well no. The 2nd Amendment applies to state and local governments but it doesn't apply. Clear? Well, do a web search for the case and read it yourself. My head hurts.

Now, as far as opening the door on the unfair and capricious manner in which concealed carry licenses are issued in California . . . that could get interesting.

We'll keep you posted.


As others pointed out, while it upholds Heller,effectively outlawing out right ban on guns, it leaves the door opened for excessive regulation outside the home.
It is still important to note that THIS COURT, is forced to concede, however grudgingly, to the basic right to "Arms" by  Law abiding Citizens.

[ericire12]

As others pointed out, while it upholds Heller,effectively outlawing out right ban on guns, it leaves the door opened for excessive regulation outside the home.
It is still important to note that THIS COURT, is forced to concede, however grudgingly, to the basic right to "Arms" by  Law abiding Citizens.

Hopefully this will be appealed to the Supreme Court and they will uphold it. That would result in incorporation of the 2nd Amend being recognized on a national level and not just for the states that this particular case involved

[tombogan03884]

Hopefully it will be pursued, They have gone to court to protect other gun show venues in the Bay Area.