A Troubling Ruling for Second Amendment Advocates.

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by C_Clayton_Jones, May 7, 2011.

  1. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    I’ve never liked the Nordyke case, I always thought it a distraction from actual Second Amendment issues. Indeed, this case did not originally begin as a Second Amendment complaint.

    The case involves the prohibition of gun shows on property owned by Alameda County, California. The problem is arguing against such a prohibition is a tough sell – as an avid Second Amendment supporter I’ll concede not allowing gun shows doesn’t necessarily constitute an undue burden on one’s right to obtain and own a firearm.

    Consequently, perhaps, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 20th ruled that any law such as the one banning gun shows should be subject to a ‘substantial burden’ review, making it somewhat easier for jurisdictions to enact a similar restriction. Problem: will this establish a standard by which other more deserving gun restriction ordinances are evaluated?

    I believe that any law designed to preempt, restrict, or otherwise curtail any right enumerated in the Bill of Rights should be subject to strict scrutiny, the highest standard of judicial review - including the Second Amendment right to self defense.

    I believe the following provisions are un-Constitutional: open carry bans, bans/restrictions on firearms based solely on cosmetic appearance or configuration, magazine capacity or design, restrictions on the number of firearms purchased during a given time period, waiting periods, instruction requirements, license and permit requirements, and any type of registration.

    Also, many restrictions on firearms are based on ignorance, which is indeed frustrating – banning a weapon simply because it has a pistol grip or detachable magazine is idiotic.

    Needless to say Nordyke, et al., v. King, et al. is far from over, but I see this disappointing and potentially problematic ruling more the fault of the plaintiffs-appellants than the panel.

    The ruing for those interested:

    http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/05/02/07-15763.pdf
     
  2. blu
    Offline

    blu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,836
    Thanks Received:
    774
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +774
    I really like reading your posts, but I have to say you are wasting your time here. The only 'discussion' here is fallcious flamewars between obama lovers and FOX news die hards.
     
  3. TheBrain
    Offline

    TheBrain BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    Messages:
    3,014
    Thanks Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +237
    My feeling on this, and indeed many other of our "rights" is that we as a people need to realize that we unfortunately live in a time in which we can't simply trust the average person enough to make a blatant statement that all of our rights are absolute. Every single one of the original Amendments which guaranteed our rights now have restrictions on said rights, and rightfully so.

    First Amendment - Taken literally, the government can NOT interfere with my right of free speech nor my freedom of religeon; yet we don't allow people to scream fire in a theater, nor even talk about the Bible, for example.

    It just seems odd that everyone is willing to except the fact that these limitations MUST exist except when it comes to a right that THEY care about.

    Sorry, but our forefathers never meant for us to literally be able to do anything we want without regards to the consequences.
     
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,517
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,928
    Reasonable restrictions are in the eye of the beholder. And at the whim of the political animal. Strict review is what is needed. The State must show a compelling interest if it wishes to restrict a right that is promised to the people. Other wise we have no rights.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    You guys are getting desperate aren't you? How is this ruling bad for the 2nd Amendment? Most of the experts actually think this is good for gun rights.


    Circuit Court bolsters gun rights : SCOTUSblog
     
  6. TheBrain
    Offline

    TheBrain BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    Messages:
    3,014
    Thanks Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +237
    Yes, that's exactly what I said. People don't think ANY restrictions are reasonable when it comes to the right that matters most to them. ANYONE who is honest and reasonable would admit that there are valid reasons to limit what weapons people may use. For instance, if we had NO limits then a felon couldn't even be barred from owning a weapon, because the COTUS says that the government may not pass ANY laws. Are you suggesting that you support allowing convicted felons to own firearms?
     
  7. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Should a person not be able to defend himself just because he was convicted of a crime?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,517
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,928
    Not a valid argument but as a matter of fact I do support that once a person is fully repaid the debt to society they get back ALL of their rights. If they are still a threat change the law to keep them locked up forever or until not a threat.
     
  9. Contumacious
    Offline

    Contumacious Radical Freedom

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Messages:
    17,072
    Thanks Received:
    1,469
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Adjuntas, PR , USA
    Ratings:
    +3,851
    1) Criminals will acquire firearms no matter what SCOTUS says

    2) Convicted felons have a right to life and to defend the same

    3) The welfare//warfare state has unconstitutionally criminalized many acts which are not criminal per se, ie, drug use. So why should someone who was convicted of smoking a joint be prevented from bearing arms?!?!?!?!?!?

    .
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. TheBrain
    Offline

    TheBrain BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    Messages:
    3,014
    Thanks Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +237
    In my own personal opinion, that is entirely dependent on what the crime is. If it was a crime that involved weapons, nope you screwed the pooch, but if it was a non violent crime, then I feel the law is wrong.
     

Share This Page