Ninth Circuit Upholds 2nd Amendment, Not A Peep In MSM

[Kathianne]

Links at site. I thought I had posted about this case, but can't find in search:

http://volokh.com/posts/1241068762.shtml



[Eugene Volokh, April 30, 2009 at 1:19am] Trackbacks
The Ninth Circuit's Second Amendment Ruling in the News -- Or Not:
So I thought that the Ninth Circuit's holding that the Second Amendment binds state and local governments (via the Fourteenth Amendment) was a pretty big deal. It was the first federal court of appeals decision to so hold. If followed, it would invalidate the Chicago handgun ban, plus perhaps some other broad state and local gun restrictions, such as New York City's ban on all gun ownership by 18-to-20-year-olds. And it might well trigger Supreme Court consideration of the issue, since there's now a split between the Second and Ninth Circuits on the issue.

But here's the odd thing: I couldn't find any articles about this in the New York Times, the L.A. Times, the Chicago Tribune, or the Washington Post. (I searched for second amendment or bear arms or nordyke or gun show.) There was early coverage on CNN and in the San Francisco Chronicle, but nothing else in any newspapers in the NEWS;MAJPAP file on LEXIS. Am I missing some stories that just didn't happen to use the keywords I searched for? Or is the court decision just not worth even a brief mention?

[April15]

Ruling victory for gun-right advocates
Comments 1 | Recommend 0
Wednesday, Apr 29 2009, 3:34 pm

A recent decision in the liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals actually advances the constitutional concept of an individual right to gun ownership even as the judges upheld an Alameda County, Calif., decision to ban gun shows from county property.

The decision is a mixed bag, but the case shows the degree to which the U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller decision last year is influencing the way other courts view the Second Amendment.

That’s a good thing.

Heller struck down portions of an onerous District of Columbia gun ban. It was the first time the nation’s high court directly addressed the question of whether the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership rights or whether the amendment merely protected a collective right to own guns as part of a militia.

Although the Supreme Court defended the ability of governments to pass restrictions on gun ownership, it found that the D.C. law “amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of ‘arms’ that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.”

Now enter the Nordyke vs. King case, decided by the 9th Circuit this month. At issue was a law that banned most firearms from most county property and was used to keep the proprietors of a gun show (the Nordykes) from holding a show at the county fairgrounds.

The county supervisor who proposed the ordinance made statements suggesting that for years she had been seeking a way to keep gun shows out of the county. Yet the appeals court sided with the county on First Amendment and equal-protection claims and affirmed “the district court’s refusal to grant the Nordykes leave to amend their complaint to add a Second Amendment claim to this case.”

The appeals court ruled, essentially, that the county has a right to prohibit firearms on its property if it so chooses.

That’s bad news for the Nordykes, but the 9th Circuit’s reasoning contains a significant victory for gun-right advocates. The court unequivocally stated that individuals have the constitutional right to own firearms. Because the right to keep and bear arms was a fundamental right that predates the Constitution and is a necessary part of the nation’s history and traditions, the court also found the 14th Amendment applies this right to the states.

The 9th Circuit panel pointed to Heller, which “characterized the right to keep and bear arms as a corollary to the individual right of self-defense.” The court offered a history lesson of the development of this individual right, and pointed to William Blackstone’s views that “the right to bear arms closely followed from the absolute rights to personal security, personal liberty and personal property. It was a right crucial to safeguarding all other rights.”

The judges also made the compelling argument of the importance of gun ownership in the case of civil rights by pointing to efforts by government authorities following the Civil War to disarm newly freed slaves. Ending such abuses, the court explained, was one reason the 14th Amendment was applied to states.

“So, inside this dark cloud of an opinion — which allows a local government to deny a fundamental right simply because a person happens to be in or even walk across property owned by the local government entity — is a sliver lining,” said former Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr. “Perhaps if we have more court decisions with such silver linings, in the not-too-distant future, citizens all across America will be able to enjoy the practical manifestation of the fundamental right recognized in the Heller decision.”

Perhaps we will. As always, the task of protecting our liberties is a long and torturous battle, but at least in this case even the 9th Circuit got the fundamental point right.

[April15]

I guess no one really cares out here so no news coverage. The previous post comes from the court register.


What did make the paper
Huge ice chunks break away from Antarctic shelf

By DAVID RISING, Associated Press Writer

Wednesday, April 29, 2009
A satellite image dated April 28, 2009 and made available...

(04-29) 21:26 PDT BERLIN, Germany (AP) --

Massive ice chunks are crumbling away from a shelf in the western Antarctic Peninsula, researchers said Wednesday, warning that 1,300 square miles of ice — an area larger than Rhode Island — was in danger of breaking off in coming weeks.

The Wilkins Ice Shelf had been stable for most of the last century, but began retreating in the 1990s. Researchers believe it was held in place by an ice bridge linking Charcot Island to the Antarctic mainland.

But the 127-square-mile (330-square-kilometer) bridge lost two large chunks last year and then shattered completely on April 5.

"As a consequence of the collapse, the rifts, which had already featured along the northern ice front, widened and new cracks formed as the ice adjusted," the European Space Agency said in a statement Wednesday on its Web site, citing new satellite images.

The first icebergs broke away on Friday, and since then some 270 square miles (700 square kilometers) of ice have dropped into the sea, according to the satellite data.

"There is little doubt that these changes are the result of atmospheric warming," said David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey.

The falling away of Antarctic ice shelves does not, in itself, raise sea levels, since the ice was already floating in the sea. But such coastal tables of ice usually hold back glaciers, and when they disintegrate that land ice will often flow more quickly into the sea, contributing to sea-level rise.

Researchers said the quality and frequency of the ESA satellite images have allowed them to analyze the Wilkins shelf breakup far more effectively than any previous event.

"For the first time, I think, we can really begin to see the processes that have brought about the demise of the ice shelf," Vaughan said.

He said eight ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula have shown signs of retreat over the last few decades.

"The retreat of Wilkins Ice Shelf is the latest and the largest of its kind," he said.

The Wilkins shelf, which is the size of Jamaica, lost 14 percent of its mass last year, according to scientists who are looking at whether global warming is the cause of its breakup.

Average temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula have risen by 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5 Celsius) over the past 50 years — higher than the average global rise, according to studies.

Over the next several weeks, scientists estimate the Wilkins shelf will lose some 1,300 square miles (3,370 square kilometers) — a piece larger than the state of Rhode Island, or two-thirds the size of Luxembourg.

One researcher said, however, that it was unclear how the situation would evolve.

"We are not sure if a new stable ice front will now form between Latady Island, Petrie Ice Rises and Dorsey Island," said Angelika Humbert of Germany's Muenster University Institute of Geophysics.

But even more ice could break off "if the connection to Latady Island is lost," she said, "though we have no indication that this will happen in the near future."

___

On the Net:

[Little-Acorn]

Links at site. I thought I had posted about this case, but can't find in search:


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=22442

:beer:

[Kathianne]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=22442

:beer:

Thanks for that, Heller was SCOTUS case, no?

[Little-Acorn]

Thanks for that, Heller was SCOTUS case, no?

Yep. DC v. Heller.

Heller was a gun owner, and oddly enough he was a guard at some Federal office building in DC. The District hired him to guard them with his gun, but at the same time they had a law saying he could not keep that gun even in his home unless it were unloaded, disassembled, and generally made impossible to use when needed.

Heller sued on grounds that his 2nd amendment rights were being violated. Got to the Supreme Court, who ruled in his favor, saying that the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) was a right of ordinary people to own and carry, no militia or other military association needed. The Supremes ordered DC to change their laws to make it possible for Heller to keep his gun in a usable state in his home.

So with that ruling sitting on them, a few months later DC formed another law, saying guns could be kept in the home if they were registered under a new system DC put together. Heller (and many others) brought their guns to the DC registration office as required, filled out all the papers, paid all the fees etc.

And DC rejected his application.

The reason they gave, was that Heller's gun was a machine gun. It wasn't, of course, it was a version of the old 1911 .45 caliber pistol developed before WWI. But DC had cobbled together some weird "law" that said if your pistol had a magazine that fed from the bottom (as most semi-auto handguns do), somehow that made it a "machine gun". Sort of like saying that if your old car had tail fins, that made it an airplane.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/M1911_Pistol_US.jpg/300px-M1911_Pistol_US.jpg

Heller re-sued. And eventually DC got rid of the sillier part of that law and let him register his gun.

Hmmm... something I'm curious about, but haven't seen, is how the crime rate in DC has gone after the Heller ruling. Especially crimes such as burglaries and home invasions, now that homeowners can keep a gun safe and ready to fire in their homes. Anybody know?

[Agnapostate]

I thought the Ninth Circuit was made up of Islamic socialist atheist liberal tax cheats and the like. ;)

[Kathianne]

I thought the Ninth Circuit was made up of Islamic socialist atheist liberal tax cheats and the like. ;)

Indeed. Which is why the ignoring of the ruling is so shocking! :eek:

[Agnapostate]

Indeed. Which is why the ignoring of the ruling is so shocking! :eek:

Not really. In reality, the Ninth Circuit is broadly civil libertarian, and thus not especially inclined to be opposed to the expansion of the Second Amendment.

[Joe Steel]

I saw an article which claimed this is really not such a bad thing for Gun Grabbersl. As I recall, it said incorporating the Second Amendment will subject all local gun laws to Federal control. I think that means all we have to do is get a good Congress and we can ban guns entirely.

[Little-Acorn]

In his absence, I had almost forgotten what kind of bizarre mind-bending little joesteel constantly goes thru, to support his agenda.

[April15]

Not even in todays paper! This is a news worthy item.

[Joe Steel]

In his absence, I had almost forgotten what kind of bizarre mind-bending little joesteel constantly goes thru, to support his agenda.

Well, Little-Bit-Nutty, if you had a brain the possibilities wouldn't seem so bizarre.

[glockmail]

I saw an article which claimed this is really not such a bad thing for Gun Grabbersl. As I recall, it said incorporating the Second Amendment will subject all local gun laws to Federal control. I think that means all we have to do is get a good Congress and we can ban guns entirely.You have both houses of Congress and the Presidency, and supposedly support from a constituency that y'all claim is becoming more "progressive" every day. What the fuck is stopping you?

[Silver]

Well, Little-Bit-Nutty, if you had a brain the possibilities wouldn't seem so bizarre.

We all realize the "possibilities", meathead....we've seen liberal Dem. judges ignore the Constitution on rulings in the past....and that will never be anything but bizarre....

[mundame]

You have both houses of Congress and the Presidency, and supposedly support from a constituency that y'all claim is becoming more "progressive" every day. What the fuck is stopping you?


A so-called "good" Congress would have to have that magic 60 Dem Senate, or better 63 or 64 after the 2010 elections before they could pass legislation controlling guns in this country.

Britain did that and now only criminals have guns, lots of them, smuggled over from the Balkans, and they have more violent crime than America does, for the first time ever. So I would question how good an idea it is to disarm citizens and empower criminals.

[Joe Steel]

This Congress is not a good Congress. It's much too deferential to the NRA.

[glockmail]

A so-called "good" Congress would have to have that magic 60 Dem Senate, or better 63 or 64 after the 2010 elections before they could pass legislation controlling guns in this country.

Britain did that and now only criminals have guns, lots of them, smuggled over from the Balkans, and they have more violent crime than America does, for the first time ever. So I would question how good an idea it is to disarm citizens and empower criminals.

Its not good at all. Just look at any US city that its been done.

[Nukeman]

This Congress is not a good Congress. It's much too deferential to the NRA.
Your kidding right you did see the thread title????


I beleive it was "Ninth Circuit Court upholds 2nd Amendment"

They are the most liberal court in the US....... :poke:

[Joe Steel]

Your kidding right you did see the thread title????


I beleive it was "Ninth Circuit Court upholds 2nd Amendment"

They are the most liberal court in the US....... :poke:

The Ninth Circuit is not part of Congress.

[Nukeman]

The Ninth Circuit is not part of Congress.

Understand that. So why would you bring up the "Congress" in a thread about the Ninth Circuit?? having trouble with your reading comprehension again.......

[Joe Steel]

Understand that. So why would you bring up the "Congress" in a thread about the Ninth Circuit??

You made the error. I just corrected it.

[Nukeman]

You made the error. I just corrected it.

Umm NO dipshit YOU made the error in bringing up the Congress in this thread. I ASSUMED you were in error again as usual (you know you do have this reading comprehension problem). So once again WHY bring up congress in the thread about the Ninth Circuit Court??????

[Little-Acorn]

I beleive it was "Ninth Circuit Court upholds 2nd Amendment"

They are the most liberal court in the US....... :poke:

As I said, even a blind squirrel finds an occasional acorn. How nice that it happened to be this one in this case.

I also mentioned that the doctrine of "incorporation" of the Bill of Rights, is wrongheaded from the get-go. The amendments themselves already tell you which governments they are binding on, and have since they were ratified.

It's nice that the 9th Circus came to the correct conclusion about the second amendment (it is binding on ALL governments in the U.S., Federal, state, and local). But that's been true since the 1790s, whether various lawyers and courts tried to pretend otherwise. Finally they don't have to any more.

The 2nd says, "the right shall not be infringed", not "Congress shall not infringe the right...". When it doesn't specify a particular government in a country that has so many, then it applies to them all.

[Joe Steel]

Umm NO dipshit YOU made the error in bringing up the Congress in this thread. I ASSUMED you were in error again as usual (you know you do have this reading comprehension problem). So once again WHY bring up congress in the thread about the Ninth Circuit Court??????

Try again, dumbass. The Courts are not part of Congress.

[Nukeman]

Try again, dumbass. The Courts are not part of Congress.
Once again moron, WHY DID YOU BRING UP CONGRESS IN A THREAD ABOUT THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT????????

and yes they are a part of congress due to the fact that congress presents laws that the courts have to uphold..............

[Psychoblues]

Repeating lies as a cure for failed policy continues to be unadvisable!!!!!!!!!!!!

Carry on you fearful hatemongers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues