9th Circuit OPEN CARRY Ruling OVERTURNED?
- Thread starter nortatoga
- Start date
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Don't know. Sounds familiar though. Not that I care what a court says since they clearly cannot tell or pretend to not know the difference between amendments of the bill of rights written at the same time that have clear restrictions placed on them in comparison to the 2nd which has none.
The 2nd is the only amendment that they restrict and infringe upon using conjecture on words that aren't there.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia
Although Madison's proposed amendments included a provision to extend the protection of some of the Bill of Rights to the states, the amendments that were finally submitted for ratification applied only to the federal government. The door for their application upon state governments was opened in the 1860s, following ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the early 20th century both federal and state courts have used the Fourteenth Amendment to apply portions of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments. The process is known as incorporation.[3]
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia
Incorporation, in United States law, is the doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states. When the Bill of Rights was ratified, courts held that its protections only extended to the actions of the federal government and that the Bill of Rights did not place limitations on the authority of state and local governments. However, the post-Civil War era, beginning in 1865 with the Thirteenth Amendment, which declared the abolition of slavery, gave rise to the incorporation of other Amendments, providing more rights to the states and people over time. Gradually, various portions of the Bill of Rights have been held to be applicable to state and local governments by incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 and the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870.
Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.
In the 2010 landmark case McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court declared the Second Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process Clause. However, Justice Thomas, the fifth justice in the majority, criticized substantive due process and declared instead that he reached the same incorporation only through the Privileges or Immunities Clause.[21] No other justice attempted to question his rationale. This is considered by some as a "revival" of the Privileges or Immunities Clause,[22] however as it is a concurring opinion and not the majority opinion in the case, it is not binding precedent in lower courts; it is merely an indication that SCOTUS may be inclined, given the proper question, to reconsider and ultimately reverse the Slaughterhouse Cases.
And I'm sure @Willjr75 you are still going to argue these facts!!
Although Madison's proposed amendments included a provision to extend the protection of some of the Bill of Rights to the states, the amendments that were finally submitted for ratification applied only to the federal government. The door for their application upon state governments was opened in the 1860s, following ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the early 20th century both federal and state courts have used the Fourteenth Amendment to apply portions of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments. The process is known as incorporation.[3]
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia
Incorporation, in United States law, is the doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states. When the Bill of Rights was ratified, courts held that its protections only extended to the actions of the federal government and that the Bill of Rights did not place limitations on the authority of state and local governments. However, the post-Civil War era, beginning in 1865 with the Thirteenth Amendment, which declared the abolition of slavery, gave rise to the incorporation of other Amendments, providing more rights to the states and people over time. Gradually, various portions of the Bill of Rights have been held to be applicable to state and local governments by incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 and the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870.
Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.
In the 2010 landmark case McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court declared the Second Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process Clause. However, Justice Thomas, the fifth justice in the majority, criticized substantive due process and declared instead that he reached the same incorporation only through the Privileges or Immunities Clause.[21] No other justice attempted to question his rationale. This is considered by some as a "revival" of the Privileges or Immunities Clause,[22] however as it is a concurring opinion and not the majority opinion in the case, it is not binding precedent in lower courts; it is merely an indication that SCOTUS may be inclined, given the proper question, to reconsider and ultimately reverse the Slaughterhouse Cases.
And I'm sure @Willjr75 you are still going to argue these facts!!
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
"The Supreme Court has ruled that the Eighth Amendment, which bars “excessive fines,” limits the ability of the federal government to seize property. On Wednesday, in a 9-to-0 decision that united justices on the left and right, the court ruled that the clause also applies to the states under the 14th Amendment, one of the post-Civil War amendments.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for eight justices, said the question before the court was an easy one. “The historical and logical case for concluding that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause is overwhelming,” she wrote."
Yes before this ruling the Eighth Amendment did not apply to the States! Notice how it says " limits the ability of the federal government to seize property" Now it has been Incorporated and does now apply!
Just like this,
In the 2010 landmark case McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court declared the Second Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process Clause. However, Justice Thomas, the fifth justice in the majority, criticized substantive due process and declared instead that he reached the same incorporation only through the Privileges or Immunities Clause.[21] No other justice attempted to question his rationale. This is considered by some as a "revival" of the Privileges or Immunities Clause,[22] however as it is a concurring opinion and not the majority opinion in the case, it is not binding precedent in lower courts; it is merely an indication that SCOTUS may be inclined, given the proper question, to reconsider and ultimately reverse the Slaughterhouse Cases.
Last edited:
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
Here's another!
The 2nd Amendment vs the Incorporation Doctrine | | Tenth Amendment Center Blog
The 2nd Amendment vs the Incorporation Doctrine
By: rick montes|Published on: Sep 9, 2015|Categories: 2nd Amendment, Incorporation Doctrine|
There has been much debate about the ” Real Meaning” of the 2nd Amendment with passion intense on both sides.
The “left” want to outlaw most firearms and leave them in the hands of Police and Military with few exceptions to private ownership, and even then, heavily regulated by the government.
The “right” says that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and no government entity can deny them that right.
Who is correct? Well…..neither.
The Second Amendment, like all of the first Ten Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were intended as a check on the Federal Government, not the Individual and sovereign States. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights makes it very clear:
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers (the Federal Governments powers) that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The Anti-Federalists were fearful of a powerful centralized government and wanted protections against its potential abuses. They understood that their liberty was protected by their State Constitutions which were written for the people of those States. Remember, the State Constitutions preceded the U.S. Constitution which in turn borrowed many ideas from the different State Constitutions, most notably Virginia.
The Police power of the individual States was left intact and protected by the Tenth Amendment.
Therefore, the Bill of Rights was a protection against the Federal Government and did nothing to hinder the States from making their own laws that suited their people. The right to keep and bear arms was already protected in most of the individual States and the 2nd Amendment was a protection against regulations by the Federal Government.
John Marshall – no defender of State sovereignty – made it very clear in his decision for Barron V. Baltimore just what the Bill of Rights intended:
But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government — not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.”
It is only the fallacious belief in the “Incorporation Doctrine,” which interprets the Fourteenth Amendment as giving the Federal Government supreme power over all the States, that many believe the 2nd Amendment trumps a States right to regulate firearms.
It is the responsibility of the people of the States to create rules, regulations and laws that suit their needs. If a State wants to ban all handguns and its people agree, so be it. If a State wants its citizens armed with automatic weapons and its people concur, so be it. However, if the Federal Government attempts to regulate who can own firearms and what types, then the 2nd Amendment comes into play. The Federal Government has no authority under the Constitution to regulate a States Police Powers.
When you think about it…how great would it be if there were no more Federal regulations on Firearm ownership? If you have the misfortune of being a gun owner and live in a State that does not trust its citizens (like I do in the People’s Republic of New York) then you have a choice to move or live under the laws your fellow citizens approve. If you live in a free State which protects your rights then the Federal Government has no jurisdiction to interfere.
It’s very important to understand what the Constitution says and means. We have to stop allowing supposed Constitutional Scholars like our current President to interpret the Constitution for us.
The 2nd Amendment vs the Incorporation Doctrine | | Tenth Amendment Center Blog
The 2nd Amendment vs the Incorporation Doctrine
By: rick montes|Published on: Sep 9, 2015|Categories: 2nd Amendment, Incorporation Doctrine|
There has been much debate about the ” Real Meaning” of the 2nd Amendment with passion intense on both sides.
The “left” want to outlaw most firearms and leave them in the hands of Police and Military with few exceptions to private ownership, and even then, heavily regulated by the government.
The “right” says that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and no government entity can deny them that right.
Who is correct? Well…..neither.
The Second Amendment, like all of the first Ten Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were intended as a check on the Federal Government, not the Individual and sovereign States. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights makes it very clear:
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers (the Federal Governments powers) that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The Anti-Federalists were fearful of a powerful centralized government and wanted protections against its potential abuses. They understood that their liberty was protected by their State Constitutions which were written for the people of those States. Remember, the State Constitutions preceded the U.S. Constitution which in turn borrowed many ideas from the different State Constitutions, most notably Virginia.
The Police power of the individual States was left intact and protected by the Tenth Amendment.
Therefore, the Bill of Rights was a protection against the Federal Government and did nothing to hinder the States from making their own laws that suited their people. The right to keep and bear arms was already protected in most of the individual States and the 2nd Amendment was a protection against regulations by the Federal Government.
John Marshall – no defender of State sovereignty – made it very clear in his decision for Barron V. Baltimore just what the Bill of Rights intended:
But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government — not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.”
It is only the fallacious belief in the “Incorporation Doctrine,” which interprets the Fourteenth Amendment as giving the Federal Government supreme power over all the States, that many believe the 2nd Amendment trumps a States right to regulate firearms.
It is the responsibility of the people of the States to create rules, regulations and laws that suit their needs. If a State wants to ban all handguns and its people agree, so be it. If a State wants its citizens armed with automatic weapons and its people concur, so be it. However, if the Federal Government attempts to regulate who can own firearms and what types, then the 2nd Amendment comes into play. The Federal Government has no authority under the Constitution to regulate a States Police Powers.
When you think about it…how great would it be if there were no more Federal regulations on Firearm ownership? If you have the misfortune of being a gun owner and live in a State that does not trust its citizens (like I do in the People’s Republic of New York) then you have a choice to move or live under the laws your fellow citizens approve. If you live in a free State which protects your rights then the Federal Government has no jurisdiction to interfere.
It’s very important to understand what the Constitution says and means. We have to stop allowing supposed Constitutional Scholars like our current President to interpret the Constitution for us.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Yes. They are facts that were based on court decisions which you always seem to take as gospel instead of taking gospel from the document itself or the words of the Founders themselves. Court decisions where judges applied their own words and conjecture to a document that didn't contain them.
If you sit back and really think about what lead to the Bill of Rights, you'd see it would make no sense for the the founders to free themselves from oppression from the king, insure freedom from the new government so that it never happens again, but subject themselves to the same tyranny from local government.
No sane person who bled on the battlefield would willingly subject themselves to it. It's preposterous. The end result would be the same as what they actually fought to free themselves from if the states decided to do the same as the King.
You link liberal websites as fact (your last post). You link court decisions that use conjecture to come about it's decisions as fact. You ignore Amendments that have clear limitations written into them that stand side by side to the Second Amendment that has none. You spend hours combing the internet looking for decisions that go against the Founder's wishes rather than looking at archived quotes and interviews that are from the Founders themselves who helped write the document that say no such nonsense about restrictions. Doing so would be getting the interpretation from the horse's mouth but that wouldn't further your agenda.
That's typical behavior of a Fudd and a Quisling. Someone who aligns themselves with the enemy to defend gun control. Why anyone would go out of their way to defend gun control is beyond me unless they were a proponent of gun control themselves.
You don't want to understand that court rulings from the 1800's that you like to link suffered from the same shenanigans that bad court rulings of today suffer from. You physically cannot fathom it or rather don't want to.
You'd rather take that then the actual quotes from the Founders themselves who destroy your argument about states. Ignore these quotes below from the horse's mouth.
The Founders themselves have defined what the militia is. Yet judges and people like you ignore it and add their own convoluted interpretation of what it is. The Founders themselves stressed the importance of the citizenry to have arms to defend themselves against standing armies yet you think they didn't want it to apply to local governments. Does that make any sense?
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
You can't get around this one when you defend your state's gun control laws.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
You can't get around this one when you defend your state's gun control laws.
Last edited:
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
10th Amendment!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That's in regards to things not in the Constitution.
Forget it dude. I'm tired of you defending gun control.
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
You just made my case!
Where does the Constitution say the Federal Government has power over bearing arms.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
You aren't really serious are you? In case you are, read the Article 6 above. Try to understand what it says. The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land and all states and judges are bound by it. That means that states are supposed to follow the 2A.
OMG. I'm done with this. You are incredible. The lengths you go to to justify gun control. You are either evil or a buffoon.
Last edited:
byron
.308 Win
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
Again the BOR's only applied to the Federal Government!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Done. It was explained to you already. Bye! 
FrankenCub
.338 Win Mag
So in some people's minds the Dems can stack the States, as is being done right now, and force strict regulations on the 2nd and eventually only allow a single shot .22 and shotgun. Thereby bypassing the Fed. See how easy that is, Fed didn't violate the 2nd, yet States are allowed to run roughshod on the 2nd with no recourse when the Dems have control. I'm pretty sure the Founders didn't have that in mind.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Hamilton sure didn't as evidenced from his quotes above.
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
Not since 2010 when the 2A was incorporated.
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
Look here from the Sixth Amendment Center of all places!
Applying the Bill of Rights to state governments | Sixth Amendment Center
Applying the Bill of Rights to state governments | Sixth Amendment Center
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
You are obsessed. It's a sickness.
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
Will I started this thread, and your the one that took it in this direction! You don't like me sticking to facts that prove you wrong don't reply. You argue like a liberal Democrat all opinion and feelings facts be damned. Then you resort to name calling insults clam people mean things that they don't and never said!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Haha. I respond because you defend gun control and you are wrong on so many levels.
So let's assume that you are correct. The founding fathers never explained the 2A as quoted above. The founding fathers never said that when a State becomes tyrannical and no longer represents the citizenry of such state, the citizenry must take arms as quoted above. Let's assume that the founding fathers wanted gun control from the states even though they fought against a king who oppressed them. Let's assume that amendment 12 and article 6 don't mean what it says. Let's assume that the Constitution didn't apply to the states until a certain time. Let's assume that all that and more.
Article 2 - NY Civil Rights Law
S 4. Right to keep and bear arms. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.
What do you say to Article 2 of the NY Civil Rights Law above? Why do you defend gun control? Answer. Because you want gun control. You are obsessed with it. You are constantly finding ways to justify it. It's sickening. You need help.
I once mentioned that concealed carry was a useful tool that can be used to dispose of a government. Your response was something to the effect that the government better not find my post.
What the hell do you think the 2A is about? It isn't about hunting, sport shooting, and Appleseed Shoots. It's about personal defense and the ability to dispose of a government. You are a Fudd. Plain and simple and people like you are the biggest enemies of the Second Amendment. You give credence and legitimacy to the government that oppresses us by constantly quoting court decisions that ignore what the founding fathers actually said and explained in The Federalist Papers on record.
The ability to dispose of a government that goes too far is the primary purpose of the 2A and Article 2 of the NY Civil Rights Law. Everything else is secondary.
Last edited:
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Edited above.
@thewheels
.308 Win
You're assuming that the method of incorporation that's been followed has been correct.
The current method of incorporation flies in the face of the 14th amendment.
The entire BOR was incorporated with the 14th, but the black robes insisted incorrectly on this selective bullshit that has occurred since its ratification.
Think about it logically. Since the 14th is the means for incorporation, how in the hell could any judge (or anyone else) interpret the 14th to find a selective avenue for incorporation for each amendment in the BOR?
They can't. It's not written in the 14th ANYWHERE. There's absolutely no intelligent justification for the judicial tyranny done by subverting the plain language of the 14th to find selective incorporation as correct/proper.
The fact that the precedent for selective incorporation was set way back when by some black robed bandits and still stupidly followed to this day does not make it right.
If anything it makes it worse - Generations of American citizens being dicked over by unconstitutional state laws because some judicial clowns won't grow a sack and put that selective incorporation trash in the dustbin of history.
This statement is plain and easy to understand even for asshole lawyers and judges that don't want it to say what it says:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
Whether you agree with it or not! At least you understand it!
@thewheels
.308 Win
Anyone that understands it, can't agree with selective incorporation. It's a blatant corruption of the 14th. Nothing more.
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
@thewheels
.308 Win
For better or for worse it established judicial review which is a bandaid for a serious problem.
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
Yes and the Court use Judicial Review on each Incorporation ruling did they not. The 14th didn't automatically Incorporate the BOR's it was used as a vehicle to Incorporate. (meaning it was not the original intention of the 14th)
Now lets just stay with the 2A before McDonald was there another case that came before the Court that would have fit the criteria for Incorporation?
@thewheels
.308 Win
But automatic incorporation of the BOR was the intent of the 14th. Delaying through selective incorporation ensures the 14th is violated.
The 14th says nothing of allowing the court the power to pick and choose when/what/how it applies the 14th (and by extension the BOR) to the states.
What was the point in ratifying the 14th if the BOR could be selectively incorporated to protect the former slaves from the crap laws the southern states imposed on them. There's no logic in that argument.
Hey former slaves, the BOR doesn't apply to you just yet.
We've just got a few decades to go before all of it does. We'll get around to incorporating the 4th in about 100 years. Sorry 'bout that and all the shit that you'll deal with because of it.
You can't even begin to make an intelligent argument that the example above was the intent of the 14th.
The 14th made incorporation automatic. Not in 10 or 20 years, Not in 100 years or whenever the court saw fit. Now.
Question: If the intent wasn't automatic, how is the court bound by the constitution?
Answer: They aren't when they get to determine WHEN the BOR applies