|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 6, 2008, 10:34 PM | #1 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
9th Circuit and 2A Incorporation
From the "In case no one is watching Dept."
After the flurry of cases filed in the aftermath of Heller, we all thought it would be a few more years before the matter of incorporation would reach any Circuit, let alone the SCOTUS. Well, we were all wrong. The following are the briefs filed in the ongoing Nordyke, et al v. King, et al case, before the 9th Circuit as of 10/03/08: Litigants Briefs: 10/3/08 SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF: RUSSELL ALLEN NORDYKE; et al. 10/3/08 APPELLEES’ BRIEF IN REPLY TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF APPELLANTS [opposition brief] Amicus Curiae Briefs: 10/01/08 Amicus Curiae: The National Rifle Association of America and California Rifle & Pistol Association brief 10/01/08 Amicus Curiae: Professors of Law brief 10/01/08 Amicus Curiae: Professors of Law, History, Political Science or Philosophy brief 10/03/08 Amicus Curiae: SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC. 10/3/08 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE LEGAL COMMUNITY AGAINST VIOLENCE The one I would like to comment upon, is the Brief filed by the SAF. As it is the most presuasive of the amicus briefs filed. On 2 Oct. 2008, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has submitted an amicus curiae brief in the revived Nordyke case that is now before the 9th Circuit. Alan Gura is the counsel for the Amici and has written one heck of a brief. There are 5 points to the brief. 1) The Court (9th Circuit) is required by Heller to consider the question of incorporation, and that such a question cannot use Cruickshank, et al, as they are relics of the pre-incorporation era, and that the previous controlling precedents (i.e.Fresno) of the 9th are now obsolete, via Heller. 2) Makes the argument that under modern incorporation doctrine, the 2A is already incorporated, and that is is only required for the Courts to acknowledge this. This argument stems from the fact that the SCOTUS has ruled that the right in question is a fundamental right. Such a right, under incorporation doctrine, is necessary for the ordered Liberties of a free society. 3) That the 2A does nothing to interfere with the normal police powers of the State. Here, Gura equates what Alameda County really wants is a police-state, and this is untenable under the Constitution. 4) That the BOR was to be and is an improvement over the English Bill of Rights. It was never meant to be the same or less than their English counterparts, which is the argument of the appellee's. and 5) That lawful commerce in arms is a protected subsidiary right of the 2A. That is, the State may not curtail the working implements of the right without running afoul of the right. In this, the power to regulate firearms does not reach to the power to deny firearms. A crucial holding in Heller. Incidently, it is in this section (5) that that the amici brief states that the only reason for the prohibition of gun shows at the county fairgrounds, in light of other lawfully entertained permissions (literally, exceptions to the gun regulations), is to deny (suppress) the exercise of 2A rights. I particularly liked the first section, as it deftly kills any reliance upon Cruickshank, Presser and Miller as any kind of valid precedent under current incorporation doctrine. Along the way, Gura makes the argument that the 14th was a direct response to Barron (by overturning it through amendment) and how the Court has begun (and continues) to correct its Slaughter-House decision. To those of you (absolutists) that did not like some of Gura's holdings in his briefs and Orals in Heller, you will likewise take exception to some things said in part III. In light of Heller, it will be interesting to see how the appellee's climb out of this hole that has been dug. As it is, the appellee's only real argument is that the 2A is not incorporated. None of their arguments state why (with any credibility) it should not be incorporated within the Due Process Clause of the 14th. Granted, there are some serious arguments against incorporation, but this case has the best chance, as the panel that is reviewing the case has all but said they would incorporate. |
October 7, 2008, 09:22 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
|
That's a good analysis of Gura's brief, Al. Upon reading it, the brief clearly shows that Alameda permits certain gun-related activities while banning those it does not like.
I'm reading the opposing SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE LEGAL COMMUNITY AGAINST VIOLENCE and it is not terribly persuasive. 1. They argue that the 2nd isn't incorporated so the appeal is already settled. But they cut their own throats by saying the judge in Fresno said that until the Supreme Court’s previous decisions in Cruikshank and Presser are overturned the 2nd applies only to the federal gov't. (Hey, guess what, folks!) In Heller the court made it clear that both cases were no longer controlling due to modern incorporation standards. 2. They take the stance that, even if incorporated, because Nordyke is engaged in commercial sales Heller doesn't apply because there is no claim of violating possession in the home. Intead they claim that the case is about regulation of commercial sales; prohibiting carrying of arms in sensitive locations...such as government buildings; which Gura trashed in his brief. They also miss the point. They show there are "other venues" for purchasing a firearm in Alameda county (29 FFL holders) but fail to address which of these are capable of either hosting a gun show or providing the ability of hundreds of people to assemble for the same purpose as a gun show. It's like saying "We can ban any assemblies of persons on public grounds because you can always use private property or have their discussions on the Internet." 3. They argue that "Strict Scrutiny" is not correct and that the "reasonable regulation" standard is, mostly because that is what has been used in the past. They entirely neglect the fact that "past precedent" was based on the lack of the 2nd being defined as a fundamental, individual right as found in Heller. This entire section crumbles when faced with the need to treat the 2nd Amendment as a fundamental right. 4. Their claim that Alameda can manage it's own property as it sees fit and/or that it has a duty to maintain safety and order on government property falls far short. Gura points out there is little evidence of unsafe or unlawful conduct at gunshows. Additionally, while the county is not obligated to allow use of the fairgrounds for any purpose, the record shows the intent is to deny exercise of 2nd Amendment rights by prohibiting the selling, trading or purchasing of firearms as Gura's brief describes. 5. They make a claim that the "carrying" and "possession" of firearms in a public place has long been prohibited. However, the laws they describe refer to loaded weapons and/or inciting fear by possessing a firearm, not safely carrying an unloaded firearm to a place where it may be sold, traded or appraised by a dealer. By their definition, one could not transport a weapon between home and a dealer or range without violating the law. Their arguments follow only the most narrow parts of the SCOTUS decision, claiming that the 2nd only protects rights "in the home" because that's how Heller was decided. The completely neglect having to adjust scrutiny standards, ignore the implications that the right to own a firearm must be accompanied by the right and ability to purchase one and that the county cannot show a "compelling public interest" in prohibiting guns shows on the grounds of "safety".
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately) |
October 7, 2008, 02:04 PM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: In the oak studded hills near Napa
Posts: 2,203
|
In the the supplemental reply brief (I haven't read the opposition brief yet) I found:
Quote:
|
|
October 7, 2008, 02:34 PM | #4 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
"Second, as Justice Scalia has explained, “properly understood, [the Second Amendment] is no limitation upon arms control by the states.” Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation, Federal Courts and the Law, 136-137, n.13 (Princeton University Press 1997)." Page 2 of the Appellees Brief.
|
October 7, 2008, 02:38 PM | #5 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
A bit of background...
The 9th Circuit panel consisting of Judges Alarcion, O'Scannlain and Gould that first ruled on Nordykes facial challenge, have retained jurisdiction. In light of Heller the question is now presented as an as applied challenge.
What is clear from the prior ruling is that the panel strongly suggested (and Gould's concurrence stated plainly) that it did not believe that the previous Second Amendment rulings in Hickman and Silveira were good law. Gould deliberately proceeds to show how he would view arguments for incorporation. Under Heller, Fresno would not be controlling. I believe that Don Kilmer (attny for appellants) and Gura both address all the issues Gould laid out. By inference, all three Judges would incorporate. Whether the as applied challenge would succeed in whole or in part is another story. |
October 7, 2008, 04:33 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: In the oak studded hills near Napa
Posts: 2,203
|
Ya know; I’m a pretty simple guy and certainly could not be considered even remotely knowledgeable in the field of law. But I can read (yeah, yeah – surprise to some I’m sure) and when I read this:
Quote:
That aside, I’ve been reading the briefs and find them fascinating. |
|
October 7, 2008, 06:04 PM | #7 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
A lot of us, use FindLaw.com to research and read about many of the cases we talk about. I have found that Cornell University uses a much better format, when you can find the case there.
grymster2007, to understand how the P&I clause (the one you quoted) was read out of the amendment (and thus, out of the Constitution), you should read the decision that did this. Slaghterhouse Cases at Cornell. You can contrast what Justice Miller writes in his majority opinion and contrast that with the 3 dissenting opinions. To help save you time: Justice Miller spends a few paragraphs on the civil war and its aftermath. He expounds upon how the 13th, the 14th and the 15th were passed in regards to giving only the Negro or African race the rights of all free men. Then after expounding upon the meaning of the phrase, Privileges and Immunities, he writes: Quote:
That is how the P&I clause has been read completely out of the Constitution by a single case before the Supreme Court. A Court that refuses to believe change can happen. |
|
October 7, 2008, 09:21 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: In the oak studded hills near Napa
Posts: 2,203
|
Quote:
So how is it that a single decision, made more than one hundred years ago, continues to thwart the explicit intent of the 14th amendment? Was the decision ever tested? If so, how did it survive? |
|
October 9, 2008, 06:12 AM | #10 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
My own opinion would be that this is a case of overruling stare decisis without actually overruling it. Around the 1930s, the doctrine of selective incorporation through due process was invented to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. This didn't overrule Slaughterhouse, which still remains a good point of law to this day on the extent of the P&I clause; but it sure did come up with a different outcome than a strict following of Slaughterhouse would allow. This basically let the Supreme Court selectively apply the Bill of Rights to states piece by piece - rather than trying to swallow the elephant whole, it let them carve it up bit by bit and eat it a piece at a time. By the time it was politically practicable to actually eat the rest of the elephant, there wasn't much point left to it because there was just a couple of bites left (one of which is the Second Amendment). I think this case has great potential though. A recent ABA article noted that facial challenges have had a very difficult time with this Court and that as-applied challenges are much more successful. On top of that, I think a supermajority on this Court realizes that Slaughterhouse was bad law and wants it to go away - not only does this case offer an excellent basis to incorporate the Second Amendment under the doctrine of selective incorporation - it also offers an intriguing chance to overturn Slaughterhouse outright and right past wrongs. I don't know if the Court would go that far given that two small portions of the BoR (right to indictment by grand jury and something else I can't remember) have been specifically held not to be incorporated against the states in previous cases; but it does dangle some interesting bait out there for them. |
|
December 15, 2008, 12:54 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
"Second, as Justice Scalia has explained, “properly understood, [the Second Amendment] is no limitation upon arms control by the states.” Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation, Federal Courts and the Law, 136-137, n.13 (Princeton University Press 1997)." Page 2 of the Appellees Brief.
__________________ This DOES seem at odds with the argument for incorporation. What am I missing here? |
December 15, 2008, 02:03 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
This was written before the "right of the people" actually applied to individuals...(at least at the federal level).
So, perhaps, the interpretation changes with the Heller ruling. Thoughts? |
December 15, 2008, 03:45 PM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
|
|
December 15, 2008, 05:04 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 19, 2007
Location: Lago Vista TX
Posts: 2,425
|
All interesting arguments ... however, I know most of you are aware of the Ninth Circuit's record of extremely liberal decisions, I'm not convinced they will reach the decision we're hoping for ... of course, they're also (I believe) the most overturned Circuit ...
__________________
"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." Albert Camus |
December 22, 2008, 06:58 PM | #15 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
|
"Liberal" in it's true meaning, means to evaluate everything put before you, and make a reasoned decision.
The 9th circuit, Judge Thelton Henderson in particular, has been an advocate for civil rights. He was also my advanced ConLaw teacher, Euguene Swan's friend. Both went to Boalt. Both are black. To finally get rid of The Slaughterhouses Cases would be a legacy they would like. Also, the Incorporation of the 2A would lead to more minority LEGAL gun ownership, and, I believe, a reduced amount of crime. The gangs already have guns. I can't help but think that Henderson is well aware of Contra Costa County's good old boy network, limiting CCW permits by race, and, that it might make him determined to do something about it, given the chance. I do have hope that their opinions are shared by the judges reviewing this issue. As a liberal, how could you NOT be for incorporating the Bill of Rights against the states, and, insuring "liberty and justice for all"? |
December 22, 2008, 07:21 PM | #16 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I believe the base problem is that "Liberal" no longer means "Classical Liberal," which is what you are describing.
|
December 23, 2008, 12:19 AM | #17 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
|
Al, I agree. It really means 'facist-liberal'.
|
December 23, 2008, 06:38 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,310
|
Actually, I think that Liberal in the United States today is closer to socialism. The current version of the Republican party's version of religious conservatism is closer to fascism.
__________________
Caveat Emperor |
December 23, 2008, 10:23 AM | #19 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Let's not take this labeling (of political beliefs) any further.
It adds nothing to the debate on the merits of Nordyke before us. |
December 24, 2008, 01:25 AM | #20 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
|
My point in bringing this up is simple: you may have real, old liberals in positions who for a variety of reasons, would like to see the Slaughterhouse cases destroyed as precedent, and, the 14th amendment properly incorporating the Bill of Rights, and, with a bit or irony, they would have to include the 2nd amendment, as well...AND, that some of those classical liberals ARE Federal Judges in the 9th circuit...
|
December 27, 2008, 11:20 AM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
|
If you go back to the Declaration of Independence:
Quote:
Many colonies and states had a bill of rights before the adaption of the Constitution. It was delegates from the states that approved the Bill of Rights which is part of our Constitution. It wasn't the federal government who was saying that the Bill of Rights had to be adopted. it was the people from the states who wanted it. I think the Heller Decision laid a foundation for that again. That a person has a basic right to defend himself and the Second Amendment is a guarantee of that right. Hopefully cases like these will get us back to that standard
__________________
Have a nice day at the range NRA Life Member |
|
December 27, 2008, 08:23 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
Quote:
Back then, the only alternative source of rights they could think of was (a?) God. Today, another alternative source exists: our rights come from what we are as intelligent beings and have their basis in our biology. In this view, our rights are protected by the social structures we build, and embryonic forms of this can be seen among animals. If you don't think a pack of wolves know about property rights fr'instance, go try and take away their dead caribou or whatever. Many species all the way back to ants and bees do collective self defense...etc. And it's very clear all of our ancestors going back at least 10 million years were pack animals same as the great apes today. I say this because I once had an argument with a modern-day "patriot" over whether or not an athiest could have a proper appreciation for the US system of government.
__________________
Jim March |
|
December 27, 2008, 10:02 PM | #23 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
|
IIRC, Jean Jacque Russeau came up with the social contract.
That is, that the power a government has is because it's agreed to by the people who put the government in place. Problem is when that social contract breeds a Leviathian... |
January 16, 2009, 12:59 AM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 18, 1999
Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California
Posts: 4,261
|
The audio of today's oral arguments have been posted. Warning they are loading very slowly. So far I think we're ahead on points but you never know with courts. It's also a pretty good lesson in how the system works, and it's nothing like TV.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/vi..._id=0000002641
__________________
Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation. Annual Member: Revolutionary War Veterans Association (Project Appleseed) and the Madison Society. |
January 16, 2009, 03:05 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Well, that was sort of underwheming. Perhaps Antipitas and others can help us lay folks understand what happened, or didn't happen there.
On it's face, it didn't seem to me as though the plaintiff's attorney did a very convincing job of tying either the second amendment or it's incorporation to the plaintiffs right to have a gun show on county property. After listening to the audio, I wondered myself why this case once seemed to be the poster child for incorporation. Why wouldn't he argue that the ability to defend one's life via keeping and bearing arms is a right so fundamental, that it should take a seat next to the first, and fourth amendment in terms of applying it to the states. Asked another way, if speech and religion are rights fundamental enough to warrant incorporation, how is it possible that self preservation could fall below that standard? I hope I am missing something; I usually am. |
Tags |
9th circuit , calguns , incorporation , nordyke |
|
|