Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Court: 2nd Amendment trumps local gun limits |
Post Reply |
Author | |
Chris Farris
TEAM SWFA - Admin swfa.com Joined: October/01/2003 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 8024 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: April/23/2009 at 10:14 |
Wednesday, April 22, 2009 WEAPONS OF CHOICE WorldNetDaily Court: 2nd Amendment trumps local gun limits Described as 'protection against government degenerating into tyranny' Posted: April 22, 2009 11:50 pm Eastern By Bob Unruh WorldNetDaily
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California has ruled that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition" and long has been regarded as the "true palladium of liberty," so it therefore must be applied against state and local government weapon restrictions as well as federal gun limits. The ruling came in a decade-old dispute over a private operation's request to hold a gun show at a county fairground, even though the county prohibited gun possession at its facilities. The new ruling from the usually liberal 9th Circuit said Alameda County in California was allowed to ban guns at its facilities, but in general the 2nd Amendment provision for Americans to keep and bear arms applies not to just federal gun limits but local rules as well. "This could be big, folks," wrote Kurt Hofmann at the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. (Story continues below) "In Nordyke v. King … we may very well be seeing the beginning of the end of that very unsatisfactory set of circumstances, wherein state and local governments need not so much as pay lip service to the 2nd Amendment," he continued. "In the 9th Circuit, in fact, that end has indeed arrived. "This development is very significant, because the 9th is the largest, and thus one of the most important, federal circuit courts. It is also considered the most 'liberal,' and thus perhaps the most resistant to protecting the right to keep and bear arms," he continued. Hofmann cited a concurring opinion by Judge Ronald M. Gould, who wrote that nothing less than the security of the nation – a defense against both external and internal threats – rests on the provision. "The right to bear arms is a bulwark against external invasion. We should not be overconfident that oceans on our east and west coasts alone can preserve security," Gould wrote. "We recently saw in the case of the terrorist attack on Mumbai that terrorists may enter a country covertly by ocean routes, landing in small craft and then assembling to wreak havoc. That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in an attack on any community before more professional forces arrived. Second, the right to bear arms is a protection against the possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with individual diligence." The court opinion this week said, "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 court continued. "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," the opinion said. The court previously had ruled exactly the opposite way, but it said the U.S. Supreme Court's Heller decision, which confirmed that the 2nd Amendment right is personal as well as collective, prompted the reversal. At Poligazette, a commentator noted it is a major victory for the pro-gun position. And another Gun Rights Examiner writer, D |
|
cyborg
Optics God Gaseous Clay Joined: August/24/2007 Location: North Georgia Status: Offline Points: 12288 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Man I hope it goes the right way. Can you believe the normally liberal leaning would rule that way?
|
|
With Freedom comes great responsibility, you cannot have one without the other
An armed public are citizens. A disarmed public are subjects. OATH KEEPER #8233 Support us, and join our cause. Cyborg |
|
BeltFed
Optics Retard Joined: February/12/2008 Location: Ky Status: Offline Points: 22287 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I'm shocked!
Bet you don't hear this on the nightly news though.
|
|
Life's concerns should be about the 120lb pack your trying to get to the top of the mountain, and not the rock in your boot.
|
|
3_tens
Optics Jedi Master Joined: January/08/2007 Location: Oklahoma Status: Offline Points: 7853 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
This judge needs to rule over the rights of land owners on the boarders to protect the boarders against invaders. I would be willing to fill out a U.S. boarder hunting permit. This would scare the pants off the drug runners and others.
|
|
Folks ain't got a sense of humor no more. They don't laugh they just get sore.
Need to follow the rules. Just hard to determine which set of rules to follow Now the rules have changed again. |
|
silver
Optics Master Joined: November/04/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2291 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
What is real interesting is this is the court that "everybody" had expected to rule against the 2nd Amendment.
|
|
"If we weren't all crazy we, We would go insane." Jimmie Buffet
WWW.formitch.com |
|
helo18
Optics Jedi Knight Joined: December/02/2006 Location: Montana Status: Offline Points: 5620 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I wouldn't let the 9th Circuit rule on too many things. They are one of the most liberal in the country. They only reversed that after the Heller case. If that case had not happened, this decision would never have been reversed. The 9th Circuit (which Montana falls under) scares me. |
|
To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.
GEORGE WASHINGTON |
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |