Guess who filed an amicus brief favorable to the 2A being incorporated?

ilbob · July 7, 2009, 09:50 AM

A quote from the brief to help you.

Quote:

THESE PETITIONS SHOULD BE GRANTED TO AFFIRM THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE STATE

Perhaps a hint. The AG in question once dated Linda Rondstadt.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=200613

ZeSpectre · July 7, 2009, 10:01 AM

Outstanding.
Can you just imagine the ripples from this one?

**Mike Irwin** · July 7, 2009, 10:05 AM

Well, I know it wasn't Virginia's AG.

Gutless wonder isn't anywhere to be found on the gun issue right now.

azredhawk44 · July 7, 2009, 10:12 AM

The guy sure equivocates on the issue though.

Talks up "rights" on one hand while giving a great big attaboy to CA supposed common-sense laws on the other hand... even had the audacity to mention the safe gun list that is eerily similar to the DC approved list.

Big Ugly Tall Texan · July 7, 2009, 10:13 AM

I thought he was agin us, not fer us. What gives?

CowTowner · July 7, 2009, 10:22 AM

As California Ex-Patriot, I am amazed and pleasantly surprised at the same time.
Perhaps he slipped getting out of his hot tub and.............

Doc Intrepid · July 7, 2009, 10:34 AM

"Gov. Moonbeam" has no intention of supporting widespread applicability of SA rights in California.

As someone else mentioned, establishing the fact that the State recognizes SA rights for U.S. citizens says nothing about further efforts by the State to curb citizen's rights to select any firearm they wish.

The State goes on to petition the courts to recognize the State's interest in selecting which firearms the State feels are appropriate (read "safe").

Once that right has been recognized in the courts, the State is then positioned to continue to refine the definition of "safe" using more and more onerous definitions [e.g. "magnetic rings" or "biometric sensors" so only the owner of the gun can fire the gun, taggants in propellents so that only the owner of the gun can (legally) be able to fire the weapon (...if taggants are found at the scene of a crime, guess what happens to the owner's gun rights?); State-supervised sale of ammunition in the same way that State liquor laws are currently enforced, etc.] The State of California will indeed ensure that your SA rights are observed - but only within what the State deems to be "safe"...

Anyone who might for a second feel that Jerry and the State of California have your best interests at heart should take a minute and reflect on what they may have in mind for five to ten years after this sort of legislation is granted by the courts and then passed.

When it comes to California and gun laws, celebration is premature...

ilbob · July 7, 2009, 10:42 AM

To me the tone of the thing is "You are going to incorporate, so go ahead and get it over with. Then we can get to figuring out how much of our 2A infringing laws we can salvage".

I don't think he is "on our side", but it does not hurt us that he is asking that the 2A be incorporated. That is what we want after all.

azredhawk44 · July 7, 2009, 10:50 AM

Frankly, I think the anti-gunners are adopting the same strategy that the NRA did in the 80's and 90's.

They see the tide is against them so they are moderately capitulating in an effort to try and mitigate some of the damage they see coming down the road to their paradigm.

The problem with this... is that tactic will work just fine for them, but not for us. Every stinking time case law is established with regards to 2A issues, it either creates constraints on our rights or it is so narrowly applied that it cannot be applicable to another situation.

He's hoping that his Amicus is somehow taken into account in the dicta of the SCOTUS ruling, so that even when his side loses ground in the case law, they still have SCOTUS dicta to use in the future for other "pressing needs of the state."

green-grizzly · July 7, 2009, 11:16 AM

Moonbeam's brief
Brief of 32 other states

Mike Irwin: It looks like VA did join the other states in the amicus brief.

**Mike Irwin** · July 7, 2009, 01:05 PM

Wow! Thanks, Griz. I'm absolutely shocked that he went out on a limb. He's been kind of absent on the subject lately.

LouPran · July 7, 2009, 01:18 PM

What a surprise that Wisconsin is absent.

legaleagle_45 · July 7, 2009, 02:02 PM

The Cato Institute also filed an amicus brief, which I have attached.

johnwilliamson062 · July 7, 2009, 02:19 PM

that old out dated 2A? We don't need that in our modern CIVILIZED society. Why we have police officers and a civilian military to protect us. It isn't like some raiding party of savages is going to knock down your door or something. Lets just rewrite the whole thing.
How do you like this "A citizens right to install and upkeep an ADT alarm system and to pay Federal income taxes which will provide for a standing army that will in turn provide for the common defense." An optional additional statement "Localities may charge $1000 for each response resulting from the activation of said alarm system."

They are just regrouping and picking a new angle to attack from. The last year has seen some pretty big victories for our side, and I think they are shocked and just trying to get out of the way of the momentum.

Doc Intrepid · July 7, 2009, 02:25 PM

legaleagle 45,

Thank you for posting the link to the Cato Institute's Amicus Brief. It is fascinating.

Doc

rampage841512 · July 7, 2009, 07:24 PM

I've been reading the brief filed by the 32 states. I like the reasoning, and I hope it has an impact. I'm going to have to read the Cato Institute brief next.

rampage841512 · July 7, 2009, 08:10 PM

Just finished reading the Cato Institute brief, and I have to admit I like what they are saying. It is correct that that the Court is presented with a very good opportunity to revisit and correct mistakes made in regards to the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

If the Court chooses to incorporate, it has two routes by which to do it. One is easy, via the Due Process Clause. The other isn't so easy. Incorporation via the Privileges and Immunities Clause, while in my opinion is the most correct course of action, may very well be a can of worms the justices will decline to open.

legaleagle_45 · July 7, 2009, 10:02 PM

Quote:

If the Court chooses to incorporate, it has two routes by which to do it. One is easy, via the Due Process Clause. The other isn't so easy. Incorporation via the Privileges and Immunities Clause, while in my opinion is the most correct course of action, may very well be a can of worms the justices will decline to open.

Incorporation is tricky. Under standard due process selective incorporation, it is a slam dunk. The problem is some of the justices are not enamoured with selective incorporation... and those justices were crucial in the 5-4 Heller vote (Scalia, to name one). However, these justices might be inclined to adopt a P&I argument. I would not be the least surprised to see the second incorporated via a plurality opinion using due process and a concurrance using P&I.

stevelyn · July 7, 2009, 10:55 PM

Alaska's newly appointed AG signed on.

green-grizzly · July 8, 2009, 12:04 AM

GOA brief

I am relieved the GOA did not support Chicago, just to spite the NRA.

maestro pistolero · July 8, 2009, 12:34 AM

Quote:

I am relieved the GOA did not support Chicago, just to spite the NRA.

What is that about?

ftd · July 8, 2009, 12:57 AM

Could someone please explain why the 14th amendment is even needed to uphold the right inumerated by the 2nd amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", to the states?

The 1st amendment only specifically states that "Congress shall make no law respecting ... , or prohibiting the... , or abridging the..... , or the right of the.... , and to petition the Government for....". I understand the need for the 14th here because 1A only prohibits congressional action (although the court has allowed congress, in many ways, to do what is prohibited by the 1st amendment.

Not so with 2A. 2A does not limit to only federal authority but instead gauantees that a "right of the people.. shall not be infringed". It is the right of the people and not a whim of the government. You can argue about the exact meaning of the front part of 2A, but how many ways can you read "shall not be infringed"?

The same thing, "right of the people...", holds true for 4A, 5A, and 6A. 8A also does not limit to only the Federal government, but does not state "right of the people...."

3A has the "but in a manner to be prescribed by law" out and 7A has a similar " than according to the rules of the common law" out. But neither of these give any out to any specific government entity.

So, as far as the first 8 amends go, only 1A should need the 14th to compel state compliance.

I realize that I am ignorant and naive. What am I missing?

B. Lahey · July 8, 2009, 01:46 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjMptzRVjw0

rampage841512 · July 8, 2009, 07:35 AM

Until the passage of the 14th Amendment the Bill of Rights was considered only to limit federal power. Over the last hundred years or so the court has used that amendments due process clause to make most of the bill of rights apply to state and local government as well.

That's it briefly. Best I can do from an iPhone. I suggest taking a closer look at the history of incorporation.

johnwilliamson062 · July 8, 2009, 08:30 AM

Not just the bill of rights, but the entire constitution was limited to the "federal government." It was probably not intended by the framers to pertain to the states. One of the few times Federal power was increased and I think we can all agree it was a good thing. Many many states have their own BOR modeled after the US BOR and some are even broader the the US Constitutions.

July 7, 2009, 10:01 AM	#2
ZeSpectre Senior Member Join Date: June 4, 2007 Location: Shenandoah Valley Posts: 3,276	Outstanding. Can you just imagine the ripples from this one? __________________ "The dogs may bark but the caravan moves on"

July 7, 2009, 10:05 AM	#3
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,389	Well, I know it wasn't Virginia's AG. Gutless wonder isn't anywhere to be found on the gun issue right now. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

July 7, 2009, 10:13 AM	#5
Big Ugly Tall Texan Senior Member Join Date: June 25, 2009 Location: El Paso, Texas Posts: 174	Jerry brown!!!! I thought he was agin us, not fer us. What gives? __________________ Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you! - Nikita Khrushchev Nikita K. made the prediction. Barry O. will make it come true. - Big Ugly Tall Texan "The 9mm Luger cartridge will simply not do for serious work." - Jeff Cooper "Do not throw rocks at people with guns." - Hastings' Third Law

July 7, 2009, 10:22 AM	#6
CowTowner Senior Member Join Date: October 17, 2007 Location: Cowtown of course! Posts: 1,747	As California Ex-Patriot, I am amazed and pleasantly surprised at the same time. Perhaps he slipped getting out of his hot tub and............. __________________ NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor *“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......”* President John F. Kennedy

July 7, 2009, 10:42 AM	#8
ilbob Senior Member Join Date: November 29, 2006 Location: Northern Illinois Posts: 515	To me the tone of the thing is "You are going to incorporate, so go ahead and get it over with. Then we can get to figuring out how much of our 2A infringing laws we can salvage". I don't think he is "on our side", but it does not hurt us that he is asking that the 2A be incorporated. That is what we want after all. __________________ bob Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

July 7, 2009, 10:12 AM	#4
azredhawk44 Junior member Join Date: September 28, 2005 Location: Mesa, AZ Posts: 6,465	The guy sure equivocates on the issue though. Talks up "rights" on one hand while giving a great big attaboy to CA supposed common-sense laws on the other hand... even had the audacity to mention the safe gun list that is eerily similar to the DC approved list.

July 7, 2009, 10:34 AM	#7
Doc Intrepid Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2009 Location: Washington State Posts: 1,037	"Gov. Moonbeam" has no intention of supporting widespread applicability of SA rights in California. As someone else mentioned, establishing the fact that the State recognizes SA rights for U.S. citizens says nothing about further efforts by the State to curb citizen's rights to select any firearm they wish. The State goes on to petition the courts to recognize the State's interest in selecting which firearms the State feels are appropriate (read "safe"). Once that right has been recognized in the courts, the State is then positioned to continue to refine the definition of "safe" using more and more onerous definitions [e.g. "magnetic rings" or "biometric sensors" so only the owner of the gun can fire the gun, taggants in propellents so that only the owner of the gun can (legally) be able to fire the weapon (...if taggants are found at the scene of a crime, guess what happens to the owner's gun rights?); State-supervised sale of ammunition in the same way that State liquor laws are currently enforced, etc.] The State of California will indeed ensure that your SA rights are observed - but only within what the State deems to be "safe"... Anyone who might for a second feel that Jerry and the State of California have your best interests at heart should take a minute and reflect on what they may have in mind for five to ten years after this sort of legislation is granted by the courts and then passed. When it comes to California and gun laws, celebration is premature...

July 7, 2009, 10:50 AM	#9
azredhawk44 Junior member Join Date: September 28, 2005 Location: Mesa, AZ Posts: 6,465	Frankly, I think the anti-gunners are adopting the same strategy that the NRA did in the 80's and 90's. They see the tide is against them so they are moderately capitulating in an effort to try and mitigate some of the damage they see coming down the road to their paradigm. The problem with this... is that tactic will work just fine for them, but not for us. Every stinking time case law is established with regards to 2A issues, it either creates constraints on our rights or it is so narrowly applied that it cannot be applicable to another situation. He's hoping that his Amicus is somehow taken into account in the dicta of the SCOTUS ruling, so that even when his side loses ground in the case law, they still have SCOTUS dicta to use in the future for other "pressing needs of the state."

July 7, 2009, 11:16 AM	#10
green-grizzly Member Join Date: January 4, 2008 Posts: 36	Moonbeam's brief Brief of 32 other states Mike Irwin: It looks like VA did join the other states in the amicus brief.

July 7, 2009, 01:05 PM	#11
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,389	Wow! Thanks, Griz. I'm absolutely shocked that he went out on a limb. He's been kind of absent on the subject lately. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

July 7, 2009, 01:18 PM	#12
LouPran Senior Member Join Date: February 21, 2008 Location: Buried under record fall of "climate change" Posts: 346	What a surprise that Wisconsin is absent. __________________ Aspire to inspire before you expire - the poster formerly known as JP.

July 7, 2009, 02:19 PM	#14
johnwilliamson062 Junior member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Posts: 9,995	that old out dated 2A? We don't need that in our modern CIVILIZED society. Why we have police officers and a civilian military to protect us. It isn't like some raiding party of savages is going to knock down your door or something. Lets just rewrite the whole thing. How do you like this "A citizens right to install and upkeep an ADT alarm system and to pay Federal income taxes which will provide for a standing army that will in turn provide for the common defense." An optional additional statement "Localities may charge $1000 for each response resulting from the activation of said alarm system." They are just regrouping and picking a new angle to attack from. The last year has seen some pretty big victories for our side, and I think they are shocked and just trying to get out of the way of the momentum.

July 7, 2009, 02:25 PM	#15
Doc Intrepid Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2009 Location: Washington State Posts: 1,037	legaleagle 45, Thank you for posting the link to the Cato Institute's Amicus Brief. It is fascinating. Doc

July 7, 2009, 07:24 PM	#16
rampage841512 Senior Member Join Date: July 16, 2007 Location: Gardendale, Alabama Posts: 665	I've been reading the brief filed by the 32 states. I like the reasoning, and I hope it has an impact. I'm going to have to read the Cato Institute brief next. __________________ "What is play to the fool and the idiot is deadly serious to the man with the gun." Walt Rauch,Combat Handguns, May '08

July 7, 2009, 08:10 PM	#17
rampage841512 Senior Member Join Date: July 16, 2007 Location: Gardendale, Alabama Posts: 665	Just finished reading the Cato Institute brief, and I have to admit I like what they are saying. It is correct that that the Court is presented with a very good opportunity to revisit and correct mistakes made in regards to the Privileges and Immunities Clause. If the Court chooses to incorporate, it has two routes by which to do it. One is easy, via the Due Process Clause. The other isn't so easy. Incorporation via the Privileges and Immunities Clause, while in my opinion is the most correct course of action, may very well be a can of worms the justices will decline to open. __________________ "What is play to the fool and the idiot is deadly serious to the man with the gun." Walt Rauch,Combat Handguns, May '08

July 7, 2009, 10:55 PM	#19
stevelyn Senior Member Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: Fairbanksan in exile to Aleutian Hell Posts: 2,655	Alaska's newly appointed AG signed on. __________________ Stop Allowing Our Schools To Be Soft Targets! http://fastersaveslives.org/ East Moose. Wear Wolf.

July 8, 2009, 12:04 AM	#20
green-grizzly Member Join Date: January 4, 2008 Posts: 36	GOA brief I am relieved the GOA did not support Chicago, just to spite the NRA.

July 8, 2009, 12:57 AM	#22
ftd Senior Member Join Date: February 11, 2009 Location: Virginia Posts: 109	I'm no lawyer, but.... Could someone please explain why the 14th amendment is even needed to uphold the right inumerated by the 2nd amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", to the states? The 1st amendment only specifically states that "Congress shall make no law respecting ... , or prohibiting the... , or abridging the..... , or the right of the.... , and to petition the Government for....". I understand the need for the 14th here because 1A only prohibits congressional action (although the court has allowed congress, in many ways, to do what is prohibited by the 1st amendment. Not so with 2A. 2A does not limit to only federal authority but instead gauantees that a "right of the people.. shall not be infringed". It is the right of the people and not a whim of the government. You can argue about the exact meaning of the front part of 2A, but how many ways can you read "shall not be infringed"? The same thing, "right of the people...", holds true for 4A, 5A, and 6A. 8A also does not limit to only the Federal government, but does not state "right of the people...." 3A has the "but in a manner to be prescribed by law" out and 7A has a similar " than according to the rules of the common law" out. But neither of these give any out to any specific government entity. So, as far as the first 8 amends go, only 1A should need the 14th to compel state compliance. I realize that I am ignorant and naive. What am I missing?

July 8, 2009, 01:46 AM	#23
B. Lahey Senior Member Join Date: March 17, 2008 Location: Indiana Posts: 2,857	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjMptzRVjw0 __________________ "A human being is primarily a bag for putting food into; the other functions and faculties may be more godlike, but in point of time they come afterwards." -George Orwell

July 8, 2009, 07:35 AM	#24
rampage841512 Senior Member Join Date: July 16, 2007 Location: Gardendale, Alabama Posts: 665	Until the passage of the 14th Amendment the Bill of Rights was considered only to limit federal power. Over the last hundred years or so the court has used that amendments due process clause to make most of the bill of rights apply to state and local government as well. That's it briefly. Best I can do from an iPhone. I suggest taking a closer look at the history of incorporation. __________________ "What is play to the fool and the idiot is deadly serious to the man with the gun." Walt Rauch,Combat Handguns, May '08

July 8, 2009, 08:30 AM	#25
johnwilliamson062 Junior member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Posts: 9,995	Not just the bill of rights, but the entire constitution was limited to the "federal government." It was probably not intended by the framers to pertain to the states. One of the few times Federal power was increased and I think we can all agree it was a good thing. Many many states have their own BOR modeled after the US BOR and some are even broader the the US Constitutions.