Folks, go to Pete's WRSA blog here and follow the links to the original posts. Pete sums it up as follows:
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Heller: Uh, We Can't Take 'Em to Court??
From CrimProfBlog via Reason:
***
The Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms does not apply to override state firearms bans, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declared Jan. 28. Under the incorporation doctrine, only certain provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states, and the Second Amendment is one of those that does not, the Second Circuit held (Maloney v. Cuomo, 2d Cir., No. 07-0581-cv, 1/28/09)...
***
Read it all.
Remember that while the Second Circuit, which covers New York, Vermont, and Connecticut, is but a single Circuit and in theory can be overruled by SCOTUS, it is nonetheless a highly-influential Federal bench. Accordingly, its decision in Maloney will be persuasive and will be cited by other District and Circuit Courts in ruling against the Second Amendment.
Once the idea that the Second Amendment is not binding against state and local government becomes the law of the land via the adoption of Maloney by other Circuits and SCOTUS' refusal to look at the issue, "multijurisdictional task forces" will have a green light to bring down the hammer of "gun terrorists".
The fuse is lit.
Alea iacta est.
6 comments:
Blah, this has ALWAYS been true - or at least it was true prior to the 14th amendment. The Bill of Rights was intended as restrictions on the federal government, not the state governments. A state restricting rights enumerated in the BoR is therefore an issue for the voters of that state to deal with and is no big deal as far as the feds' behavior is concerned.
Of course in today's climate it's a foot in the door and a precedent and all that sort of thing, and it IS a violation of the 14th. But the 14th screwed things up more than it helped, it federalized government and stripped power and autonomy (and responsibility!) away from the states. Tossing it wouldn't be a bad move.
Incidentally, what is the deal with you and WRSA often reposting the full text of posts on the other guy's blog? Post a link, or an excerpt, but constantly reposting the full text is annoying, I read one, then I go to the other and realize I'm just rereading the same damned thing again. This happens several times in a row and then I stop visiting one or the other for a while and of course I then miss the posts that AREN'T copied.
"Incidentally, what is the deal with you and WRSA often reposting the full text of posts on the other guy's blog? Post a link, or an excerpt, but constantly reposting the full text is annoying, I read one, then I go to the other and realize I'm just rereading the same damned thing again. This happens several times in a row and then I stop visiting one or the other for a while and of course I then miss the posts that AREN'T copied."
Kind of like getting the same toy out of a Cracker Jack box three times in a row ain't it?
My apologies, Rollory, but Pete's and my readership are NOT identical. If there's an issue we think is important, we both cover it because if we don't someone will miss it. I always have language at the top like , "This from WRSA," or something similar.
A lot of times, folks WON'T click on a link, they just move to the next post. So it is irritating, I know, but necesary. It may keep me out of Heaven, but if they strain out candidates that fine, I'm in trouble anyway.
Mike
1. The RKBA is not a grant from the
Federal Government. The Second
Amendment merely codifies a pre-
existing right. The same applies
for state (and local) governments.
2. Remember Mumbai. Those who don't
prepare, and those who go along with the grabbers on any pretext,
including the one discussed in this
post ("Locking the Courthouse Doors on Gun Laws") will be sorry.
The denial of access to the courts or, if access is granted then the seemingly automatic loss of a case involving basic rights in favor of the state, seems to qualify as "oppression" as stated in the "Armed Jesus" article immediately above this. Here's the important paragraph:
"First: There must be extreme and widespread oppression -- enough to generate desperation and resentment by a wide cross-section of the population. This oppression would not only include denial of political rights, which sometimes is a bit remote in underdeveloped societies, but more especially, it must include land alienation -- taking land from the population; extra-judicial killings; desecration of cultural sites; suppression of a people's culture, including language; and such other extreme measures. This is condition number one. There must be widespread oppression, especially involving taking away of people's land and assaulting their identity."
Denial of justice to a people accustomed to justice is, in essence, an assault on their identity. They thought that they were free and respected, and subsequently find out that they are very narrowly free (usually where it doesn't hurt the government) and very much disrespected. Taking not merely property, but the very means to protect one's self and family against both ordinary street criminals and a tyrannical government, would certainly generate great desperation and resentment.
As I've seen here and elsewhere, removing the last few elements of institutitons that separate gun owners from gun grabbers is VERY hazardous to the health of the latter. You have to shake your head at their arrogance, at their assumption that they can take ANYTHING from you without fear of any consequence, so long as it meets some distorted and heavily twisted standard of justice or Constitutionality.
Warning to the gun grabbers who read this site: as the Chinese saying goes: "Be careful what you wish for, you may get it." Leave alone those who own guns and don't threaten others by their mere possession of the same - or you may later wish you had. Don't mess with that snake in the corner, shaking his rattle for all its worth - not while the snake still has teeth and venom.
For a group of people who cannot decipher "shall not be infringed"(2nd amendment) or "public purpose"( Kelo v. New London), why would we expect them to understand "all" as it pertains the 14th amendments.
These people are either intellectually stunted (not my bet) or totally unaware of the risk they have placed themselves under due to hubris (my bet).
Post a Comment