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

[azredhawk44]

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.

^^This.

Think about what the FedGov is, and how it was created. It was incorporated by a group of free men entering into a binding agreement with one another. The Constitution was simply the operating charter and was a limitation on the powers to be given to this FedGov.

Other free forms of association exist for men to participate in, and the FedGov was never intended to abridge the right to freely associate.

Hence, the ability of States, Municipalities, private Corporations and private property owners to establish their own rules and contracts for free association of men.

The FedGov was never supposed to be an overarching arbiter of all civic morality... that was supposed to come from individual communities.

While Chicago/DC/California certainly hold amoral views regarding firearms ownership rights in my (and probably your) view, I worry about the potential for yet more FedGov power grab as a result of this ruling.

After all, if the FedGov can ADD an implied right to a State Constitution, what's to say it can't eliminate one as well? Or extend 1A rights for the non-paying public to a private gathering?

In a lot of ways, I'd just as soon let residents of California/DC/Chi-town fix their own laws. At least it won't affect me adversely.

[green-grizzly]

Here is another brief: Arms Keepers.

The brief is kind of strange. The group was formed this year.

It was never perfectly clear that the the bill of rights did not apply to the states. In fact, some early state cases held that they did. The Supreme Court finally held that the BORs did not apply to the states in 1833 (Barron v. Baltimore).

There are some restrictions on the states in the federal constitution, mostly found in Article 1, Section 10, and Article 4.

[sholling]

Keep in mind that Jerry wants to be governor again. His competition are Diane Feinstein, Gavin Newsom, and two anti-Second Amendment "Republicans". He's been making noises about being not an anti for a couple of years. Even pointing out that he still owns an old 38 that he got from his dad. He needs supporters and he knows that the loony left are behind Newsom and Feinstein so he's reaching out to gun owners. He's deliberately avoided closing any AWB "loopholes" and destaffed the department in charge of harassing gun owners, and 2nd Amendment supporters are starting to tentatively line up behind him.

If you look at what he's done in that brief you'll see that he's come out on our side on incorporation, while just giving himself a fig leaf to protect himself from the anti-gun media. He's crazy but not dumb. He know that most of California's "common sense" gun control laws will fall when the 2nd is incorporated - he just can't say that and still be viable for the Governor's race.

Jerry is very liberal when it comes to the environment and civil rights and we can count on him to go off the deep end on environmental regulation/legislation but he's actually the most trust worthy of the 5 candidates when it comes to guns. That doesn't mean that he's trust worthy just that he's better than anybody else from either party.

[maestro pistolero]

That doesn't mean that he's trust worthy just that he's better than anybody else from either party.

That may have to be good enough for now. Since he likes to work with cover, let's hope the courts give him plenty of it in the near term.

[Brian Pfleuger]

*SIGH* When was the last time that wasn't true for almost any candidate, for either party, national, state, probably local?:barf:

[paull]

I've been looking for opposing amici...
Anybody find "their" side of the story..?
p

[maestro pistolero]

The vote would have been 332-206. 332 being the the electoral vote value of the states that signed vs the states that didn't sign (206).

If there had been an actual vote, I think the number of states that favored incorporation would have been higher.

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by paull

I've been looking for opposing amici...
Anybody find "their" side of the story..?

Amicus briefs for Chicago won't be filed until after Chicago files its reply brief. Which, by the way, time has been extended until Aug. 5th for them to file.

[Yellowfin]

In a lot of ways, I'd just as soon let residents of California/DC/Chi-town fix their own laws.

The problem is they can't because those governments are not in control of the citizens and do not serve them. They are essentially oligarchies or dictatorships with systemic problems that essentially rig them against 2nd Amendment rights.

[JN01]

Anybody know when the Supreme Court decides what cases will be heard for the new term starting in October?

[paull]

Thanks, Al...
I'll keep my eyes open.
I guess they'll have to try a different approach than their usual "collective right" arguement, post Heller.
p

[Al Norris]

Chicago's Brief in opposition to Cert is here.

Expect Amici for Chicago within the next 7 to 20 days. Gurra will have 20 days to file a response.

[RDak]

Thanks for the link Al.

ETA: I'll return the favor (i.e., new suit filed by Gura):

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...uns-in-public/