The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 7, 2009, 09:50 AM   #1
ilbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2006
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 516
Guess who filed an amicus brief favorable to the 2A being incorporated?

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
__________________
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.
ilbob is offline  
Old 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"
ZeSpectre is offline  
Old July 7, 2009, 10:05 AM   #3
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,266
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.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old 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.
azredhawk44 is offline  
Old 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
Big Ugly Tall Texan is offline  
Old July 7, 2009, 10:22 AM   #6
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,103
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 Firearm Safety and Pistol Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci
CowTowner is offline  
Old July 7, 2009, 10:34 AM   #7
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 825
"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...
Doc Intrepid is offline  
Old July 7, 2009, 10:42 AM   #8
ilbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2006
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 516
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.
ilbob is offline  
Old 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."
azredhawk44 is offline  
Old 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.
green-grizzly is offline  
Old July 7, 2009, 01:05 PM   #11
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 35,266
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.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old 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.
LouPran is offline  
Old July 7, 2009, 02:02 PM   #13
legaleagle_45
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Posts: 7
The Cato Institute also filed an amicus brief, which I have attached.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf IJ-Cato_Amicus_for_Cert[1].pdf (125.0 KB, 33 views)
legaleagle_45 is offline  
Old July 7, 2009, 02:19 PM   #14
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,636
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.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old July 7, 2009, 02:25 PM   #15
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 825
legaleagle 45,

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

Doc
Doc Intrepid is offline  
Old 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
rampage841512 is offline  
Old 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
rampage841512 is offline  
Old July 7, 2009, 10:02 PM   #18
legaleagle_45
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Posts: 7
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.
legaleagle_45 is offline  
Old July 7, 2009, 10:55 PM   #19
stevelyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Location: Fairbanksan in exile to Aleutian Hell
Posts: 2,616
Alaska's newly appointed AG signed on.
__________________
Herman Cain '12

Squished bugs on a windshield is proof the slow/heavy bullet theory works.
stevelyn is offline  
Old 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.
green-grizzly is offline  
Old July 8, 2009, 12:34 AM   #21
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,047
Quote:
I am relieved the GOA did not support Chicago, just to spite the NRA.
What is that about?
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old 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?
ftd is offline  
Old July 8, 2009, 01:46 AM   #23
B. Lahey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,829
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
B. Lahey is offline  
Old 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
rampage841512 is offline  
Old July 8, 2009, 08:30 AM   #25
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,636
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.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13497 seconds with 10 queries