A Troubling Ruling for Second Amendment Advocates.

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

 

[blu]

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

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.

 

[TheBrain]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

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.

In a significant part of the panel decision, it said that the “substantial burden” test is to be applied specifically to whether a gun law or regulation impinges on the right to have a gun for self-defense. It rejected the argument that courts should weigh the interest in having a gun and balance that against the government’s interest in reducing gun crimes. The focus, it said, must be on what a law does to the personal right. Moreover, the majority said that the Supreme Court in Heller had explicitly rejected a balancing test, advocated by Justice Stephen G. Breyer in dissent in that case. In turning aside the plea to set the standard at “strict scrutiny,” which surely would have doomed the Alameda County fairgrounds ordinance, the Circuit Court majority said that would be inconsistent with Heller. ”We are satisfied,” the majority said, “that a substantial burden framework will prove to be far more judicially manageable than an approach that would reflexively apply strict scrutiny to all gun-control laws….The substantial burden test…will not produce nearly as many difficult empirical questions as strict scrutiny.”

Circuit Court bolsters gun rights : SCOTUSblog

 

[TheBrain]

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.

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.

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?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.

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?

Should a person not be able to defend himself just because he was convicted of a crime?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

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.

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?

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?!?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[TheBrain]

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.

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?

Should a person not be able to defend himself just because he was convicted of a crime?

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.

 

[TheBrain]

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.

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?

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?!?!?!?!?!?

.

1. This is a dumb argument. People who want to kill will kill regardless of the law, so why do we bother having a law against murder?

2. No, they don't in fact. Don't like the law petition to have it changed, but as of today they in fact do NOT have that right.

3. Drug use is illegal. Regardless of how you personally feel about it, again if you don't like it petition to have the law changed, until such time as it is changed, you're expected to obey the law.

 

[whitehall]

It's interesting that there is a political label (2nd Amendment advocates) for Americans who respect the entire Constitution but no label for those who attack it. Why should Bill of Rights advocates be on the defensive after the greatest document in human existence established the greatest Country on the planet? Why debate the Bill of Rights after 250 years of freedom? Figure it out.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Should a person not be able to defend himself just because he was convicted of a crime?

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.

Fair answer. I would have to say that, even with a weapons charge, it would depend on the circumstances though.

 

[TheBrain]

It's interesting that there is a political label (2nd Amendment advocates) for Americans who respect the entire Constitution but no label for those who attack it. Why should Bill of Rights advocates be on the defensive after the greatest document in human existence established the greatest Country on the planet? Why debate the Bill of Rights after 250 years of freedom? Figure it out.

A) Not everyone who is an advocate of the 2nd Amendment cares about the entire COTUS, in fact most hardcore gungho second amendment folks are idiots who have no concept of the COTUS and merely fear that the gummit gonna get their guns.

B) Not everyone who advocates SOME for of gun control hates the COTUS

C) If the COTUS were so easily understood then all of these things would have been worked out years ago. What i find especially funny is that people who can barely write a legible sentence think they understand the COTUS better than trained legal scholars.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

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?

Should a person not be able to defend himself just because he was convicted of a crime?

If a person has paid their debt to socity he should not have to pay it his whole life time.

 

[TheBrain]

Should a person not be able to defend himself just because he was convicted of a crime?

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.

Fair answer. I would have to say that, even with a weapons charge, it would depend on the circumstances though.

Well, the only problem there is the amount of red tape that it would add if someone had to go case by case and decide yea or no. Just one more thing that the government gets to make the call on; easier to just tell everyone no; and honestly even though I think the law is wrong, I don't care . If you've committed a felony, I'm honestly not that concerned with your rights. Sounds assholish I know, but so be it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Fair answer. I would have to say that, even with a weapons charge, it would depend on the circumstances though.

Well, the only problem there is the amount of red tape that it would add if someone had to go case by case and decide yea or no. Just one more thing that the government gets to make the call on; easier to just tell everyone no; and honestly even though I think the law is wrong, I don't care . If you've committed a felony, I'm honestly not that concerned with your rights. Sounds assholish I know, but so be it.

At least you admit it.

 

[TheBrain]

Fair answer. I would have to say that, even with a weapons charge, it would depend on the circumstances though.

Well, the only problem there is the amount of red tape that it would add if someone had to go case by case and decide yea or no. Just one more thing that the government gets to make the call on; easier to just tell everyone no; and honestly even though I think the law is wrong, I don't care . If you've committed a felony, I'm honestly not that concerned with your rights. Sounds assholish I know, but so be it.

At least you admit it.

Why bother doing differently? I'm fine with my position. Much like torture. It's wrong, we shouldn't be doing it, but you know what? I just don't care about some people.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

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?

Should a person not be able to defend himself just because he was convicted of a crime?

If they have served all of their sentence they should get all their rights back. I mean all served and not still on probation.
Should they not automatically have their voting rights restored as well?

But would that appear to sex offenders as well?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

Should a person not be able to defend himself just because he was convicted of a crime?

If they have served all of their sentence they should get all their rights back. I mean all served and not still on probation.
Should they not automatically have their voting rights restored as well?

But would that appear to sex offenders as well?

Yes it should. If our laws are not working to protect society change them. If Sex Offenders are such a threat they can not be changed lock them up for ever. Make that the law. It is Unconstitutional to place restrictions on someone not currently serving a sentence for a crime.