TexasCHLforum.com

The following Decision, following Heller, has been handed down from the "historically very liberal" 9th Circuit United States Court of Appeals. In short, it rules the 2nd Amendment is incorporated into the 14th Amendment. Almost certainly will be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Great, must read:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/o ... 715763.pdf

This is worth celebrating!!

"...the right to bear arms is a protection against the possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with individual diligence."

This, along with the other opinions noted in this reference is extremely gratifying to see that even this radical court has to see it the right way...

I also saw a lot of wiggle room in the brief as well...Oh well...

http://texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_Forum ... =4&t=24270" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A boon and a curse.

With this decision we start approaching incorporation, but it also, as part of that incorporation, opens the door for horrendous laws against possession.

A very convoluted read, are the amicus briefs published anywhere?

I see the mention of the 2nd being inforced on state and local by the 14th....sort of....it's a difficult read.

I hate to be too simplistic, but being just a dumb ole cowboy.....it looked like the county was affirmed the right to pass laws specifically banning the gun show. I thought that was illegal on public property?

Anyone care to translate for those of us that majored in math?

That rule is specific to Texas law.
I don't think this case was in Texas.

RiverRat wrote:I see the mention of the 2nd being inforced on state and local by the 14th....sort of....it's a difficult read.

I hate to be too simplistic, but being just a dumb ole cowboy.....it looked like the county was affirmed the right to pass laws specifically banning the gun show. I thought that was illegal on public property?

Anyone care to translate for those of us that majored in math?

This is in CA, not TX, and is not binding here.

The county IS allowed to ban possession on county property, except under limited circumstances.

The Second Amendment applies down to the county level at least, due to selective incorporation through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (although the decision says state, it's about a county).

This is a good thing, in that incorporation now applies in the 9th Circuit, but a bad thing in that the county, and by extension any county in the 9th, can ban possession on county property.

I am hoping for this being appealed and maybe working its way up to the SCOTUS before bambam and his evil minions manage to change the makeup of the court. If SCOTUS upholds incorporation, it's ultimately a good thing.

jimlongley wrote:This is in CA, not TX, and is not binding here.

The county IS allowed to ban possession on county property, except under limited circumstances.

The Second Amendment applies down to the county level at least, due to selective incorporation through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (although the decision says state, it's about a county).

This is a good thing, in that incorporation now applies in the 9th Circuit, but a bad thing in that the county, and by extension any county in the 9th, can ban possession on county property.

I am hoping for this being appealed and maybe working its way up to the SCOTUS before bambam and his evil minions manage to change the makeup of the court. If SCOTUS upholds incorporation, it's ultimately a good thing.

Its frightening to me that a county fairgrounds is considered "sensitive property" by the Ninth Circuit. By their reasoning, any publicly owned property would be "sensitive" which means that even though the second amendment is incorporated, it doesn't matter because all a polity has to do to circumvent it would be to declare the area in question "sensitive."

jimlongley wrote:

RiverRat wrote:I see the mention of the 2nd being inforced on state and local by the 14th....sort of....it's a difficult read.

I hate to be too simplistic, but being just a dumb ole cowboy.....it looked like the county was affirmed the right to pass laws specifically banning the gun show. I thought that was illegal on public property?

Anyone care to translate for those of us that majored in math?

This is in CA, not TX, and is not binding here.

The county IS allowed to ban possession on county property, except under limited circumstances.

The Second Amendment applies down to the county level at least, due to selective incorporation through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (although the decision says state, it's about a county).

This is a good thing, in that incorporation now applies in the 9th Circuit, but a bad thing in that the county, and by extension any county in the 9th, can ban possession on county property.

I am hoping for this being appealed and maybe working its way up to the SCOTUS before bambam and his evil minions manage to change the makeup of the court. If SCOTUS upholds incorporation, it's ultimately a good thing.

Thanks Jim. I have never been able to mentally absorb the multi-thread weasel wording of court decisions and make any sense out of them. I would always prefer an answer, decision, or definition, rather than the never ending fog of opinion furnished by courts, leaving the door open for more gradient shades of confusing wording and complicated laws.
Guess it would be a lot more fun if I were banking the money off this litigation. :)

Cotton