Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: SCOTUS Refuses to Hear Major Gun Rights Case, Clarence Thomas Files Sharp Dissent
Source:
Reason magazine
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jun 22, 2015
Author: Damon Root
Post Date: 2015-06-22 22:24:13 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 12493
Comments: 60
SCOTUS Refuses to Hear Major Gun Rights Case, Clarence Thomas Files Sharp Dissent Petition denied in Jackson v. San Francisco. The U.S. Supreme Court dealt Second Amendment supporters a major defeat today by refusing to hear an appeal filed by San Francisco gun owners seeking to overturn that city's requirement that all handguns kept at home and not carried on the owner’s person be "stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock." Today’s action by the Court leaves that gun control ordinance on the books. If the facts of the San Francisco case sound familiar it is because they correspond so closely to the facts at issue in the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that decision, the Court voided not only D.C.'s ban on handguns, it also voided D.C.'s requirement that all firearms kept at home be "unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device." According to Heller, the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep a "lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." In other words, the San Francisco gun control law would appear to be plainly unconstitutional under Heller. Yet the Court still refused to hear the case. As is customary, the justices gave no explanation for their denial of the appeal. Two justices, however, did speak out in opposition to the Court's refusal to get involved. Writing in dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, accused his colleagues of undermining Heller and failing to give the Second Amendment its constitutional due. Here's a portion of Thomas' dissent: Less than a decade ago, we explained that an ordinance requiring firearms in the home to be kept inoperable, without an exception for self-defense, conflicted with the Second Amendment because it “ma[de] it impossible for citizens to use [their firearms] for the core lawful purpose of self- defense.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 630 (2008). Despite the clarity with which we described the Second Amendment’s core protection for the right of self-defense, lower courts, including the ones here, have failed to protect it. Because Second Amendment rights are no less protected by our Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document, I would have granted this petition. The case is Jackson v. San Francisco. Justice Thomas' dissent from denial of certiorari is available here. Damon Root is a senior editor of Reason magazine
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: tpaine (#0)
Both nominated by (R)'s. Bush and Reagan. I thought you said Kookifornia was soon to be improving? Willingly and intentionally are the way you like your tyranny served. Here in Pa, we don't have to leave out handguns home or have to have a permit or license to carry them. Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
I thought you were out west in Arizona or something.
In a few years, after I sell this income property. Hopefully by 2018 We are looking at the Suprise Az. area. Pa is not that bad a state. Great gun laws... Cheaper taxes than NY. They have pretty stiff pot laws... but that part I could care less about. I live in the Lancaster area. Amish country. Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
There are indications that the big govt socialistic kooks like you are bankrupting the State. (And the USA, of course) --- I predict it'll happen soon. Silly comment, seeing that I'm against big govt tyranny, unlike you and your buddies here. You and your group here [especially misterwhite], have always accepted the concept that local and State govts can write 'laws' that infringe on our gun rights. -- Now you're changing your tune?
Then why live in a state you have to beg to own a handgun? Not so silly... you don't have half the patriotic principles I have... or you'd move away from everybody you've ever known just to avoid paying taxes toward your own nazi gun laws... LIKE I DID. I gotta say... It was tough just yesterday. On Father's Day. Yesterday was the first time since my father died in 06 that I didn't drive to his grave site on Father's Day and tell him happy Father's Day... but I'm kinda far away now. New York caused me yesterdays hardship. I hope Cuck Fuomo dies a horrible illness. Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Silly comment, seeing that I'm against big govt tyranny, unlike you and your buddies here. You and your group here [especially misterwhite], have always accepted the concept that local and State govts can write 'laws' that infringe on our gun rights. -- Now you're changing your tune? You really are a silly boy. I've been selling and giving away my gun collection for years, but I still own over 20 handguns (and occasionally buy another), and have never begged anyone for any of them. From how you've described your law enforcement career, I'd bet that you moved away from everyone you've known out of fear of retribution, now that you've lost the badge. --- Good guess?
You say a lot of ignorant shit to avoid why you willingly lick the boots of Kookifornia. You are a joke. Why won't you move, tpaine? Why do you WILLINGLY live by ball and chain? Arizona is just one state away. Are you really a constitution lover? You are all talk and NO ACTION. Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
From how you've described your law enforcement career, I'd bet that you moved away from everyone you've known out of fear of retribution, now that you've lost the badge. --- Good guess? Rave on kiddo. Actually I don't believe any of your stories. You're probably some cop wannabe, posting from your mother's basement.
I really don't give a shit what you believe about me. It's not about me. It's about YOU. You do believe you live in Kookifornia, don't you? WHY? If you loath tyranny, and there are MANY states with low taxes and no gun restrictions, why stay in Kookifornia? You are a statist, aren't ya? You must enjoy it. Are you incarcerated and you can't leave? Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Rave on kiddo. Actually I don't believe any of your stories. You're probably some cop wannabe, posting from your mother's basement. Born in Minnesota, moved out to the bay area in '58 after the army, raised a family, and now retired to the mountains. Family, friends, -- and the fact that most areas of the state are not 'kookie' at all. -- I live in Plumas County, a little slice of heaven, with mostly good people. I'm a constitutionalist. -- It's a hell of a good system. -- You should try to understand it someday. I'm a retired building contractor, enjoying my new toy, a polaris slingshot. I'm planning to leave tomorrow for a few days ride in Nevada. -- If I drive too fast, I might wind up incarcerated...
We live and die by the choices we make. I can respect your choice to stay... but don't ever question my hatred for big brother because I was a cop... I've done what you refuse to do. End of our debate. Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
How can we here at LF avoid that, considering how you agree with misterwhite and gatlin, who love big brother type govt? Why do you keep pretending you've done something noble by leaving NY State? -- How silly can you get?
The link for the article is: http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/08/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-major-gun It is from June 8, 2015, the same date as the SCOTUS denial of cert. Thomas and Scalia, JJ., issued a dissent from the denial of cert. http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/060815zor_8m58.pdf JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari. I agree with Thomas and Scalia that the Court should have taken the case. Not taking the case cannot be legally be held as any ruling on the merits. It legally means only they chose not to hear the case. The effect is to let Jackson stand in the 9th Circuit. In other words, the San Francisco gun control law would appear to be plainly unconstitutional under Heller. There is a great divide distinguishing Jackson from Heller. Heller states: The D.C. law required a trigger lock for any firearm in the home. The San Francisco law requires the trigger lock only when not carried on the person. The D.C. ban on home possession was total. SCOTUS ruled that unconstitutional. District of Columbia banned handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; and provided separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun. The San Franciso requirement that handguns handguns be stored in a locked container at home or disabled with a trigger lock when not carried on the person, was found by the 9th Circuit to not be a substantial burden on the Second Amendment right itself because it did not prevent an individual from possessing a firearm in the home. I agree with the point argued that the trigger lock guard or lockbox should not be permitted to stand. That is not the point that was decided in Heller. If a person awakens and hears a burglar in his house, I don't think he wants to turn on a light to open a lockbox, nor does he want to fumble around with a locked weapon in the dark. If he lives alone, why does he need to lock it up to go to sleep? Ditto if no kids. The legal question is not whether the law is stupid, but whether the State has the power to issue and enforce it. SCOTUS chose not to take up this issue at this time. There is no SCOTUS opinion. This is the summary of the 9th Circuit opinion in Jackson that SCOTUS allowed to stand. If another circuit decides differently, SCOTUS could decide to take it up at a future date. https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2014/03/25/12-17803.pdf Jackson v. San Francisco, 9th Cir 12-17803 (25 Mar 2014) Civil Rights The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion to preliminarily enjoin two San Francisco firearm and ammunition regulations in an action alleging that the regulations were impermissible violations of the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. The panel held that the first regulation, San Francisco Police Code section 4512(a), (c)(1), which requires handguns to be stored in a locked container at home or disabled with a trigger lock when not carried on the person, burdened the rights protected by the Second Amendment because such storage regulations were not part of a long historical tradition of proscription. Nevertheless, the panel determined that section 4512 was not a substantial burden on the Second Amendment right itself because it did not prevent an individual from possessing a firearm in the home. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the panel held that San Francisco had shown that section 4512’s requirement that persons store handguns in a locked storage container or with a trigger lock when not carried on the person was substantially related to the important government interest of reducing firearm-related deaths and injuries. The panel held that the second regulation, San Francisco Police Code section 613.10(g), which prohibits the sale of hollow-point ammunition within San Francisco, may burden the core Second Amendment right of self-defense and the record contained no persuasive historical evidence suggesting otherwise. The panel therefore held that section 613.10(g) regulated conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the panel held that San Francisco carried its burden of establishing that section 613.10(g) was a reasonable fit to achieve its goal of reducing the lethality of ammunition. The panel held that because San Francisco’s regulations did not destroy the Second Amendment right, and survived intermediate scrutiny, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that plaintiffs would not succeed on the merits of their claims. * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. - - - - - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/07-290.htmll certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 07-290. Argued March 18, 2008--Decided June 26, 2008 District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms and that the city's total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right. Held: (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22-28. (c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28-30. (d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30-32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32-47. (f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264-265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47-54. 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56. 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition--in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute--would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56-64. 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
I feel dumb that I didn't know the Supremes write dissents on the cases they don't take up. The modern Court avoided cases involving the Second for the better part of a century. It seems the Court is waiting for a case to ripen more fully or they are going back to their moratorium of gun rights cases.
Hadn't heard of them yet. Slick wheels. The appeal of a Can-Am roadster in a reverse-trike configuration but with a more consumer-friendly profile and side-by-side seating. The weight is mostly forward, over the front axles with the passenger weight being low-slung, leaving a 3-wheel configuration that should not be prone to roll-overs. In fact, it might be a little safer overall than the Can-Am motortrikes. Some of the styling reminds me a bit of these modern Batman movies. It should be a delightful urban runabout, especially in sunny places like CA.
Another great post. I would urge you to set up some blog site, like a free Wordpress site, just to archive your posts. It seems a shame they get posted here where they could be taken offline and disappear. I urged Vicomte to do the same for years but never could get him interested. Your posts are as good as a lot of the stuff we see posted from the big-name legal blogs like Volokh. You bring your cites and add value in how you pile them up to make your point succinctly.
So what does the California state constitution say about their citizens' right to keep and bear arms? Oh, it says nothing. The California state constitution does not protect this right.
As I have been warning ever since Heller -- the second amendment is now whatever 5 justices on the U.S. Supreme Court says it is, and their interpretation applies to all 50 states.
As I have been warning ever since Heller -- the second amendment is now whatever 5 justices on the U.S. Supreme Court says it is, and their interpretation applies to all 50 states. --- misterwhite Nolu Chan shoots down misterwhites stupid opinion: --- And rest assured, they will have to take it up. -- Our legal system cannot abide a State like California infringing on such a clear cut right to keep and bear arms.
It should be a delightful urban runabout, especially in sunny places like CA One of the fastest cars I've ever owned, and definitely the best cornering. Reminds me a lot of a '54 MGTF I owned in the late 50's. Getting real tired of the batman and robin nit wit comments though. "Where's Robin?" is the most common.
Oh, it says nothing. The California state constitution does not protect this right. If the Cali constitution says nothing on gun rights, it means the people have not delegated to the Cali government any of their authority to mess with their gun rights.
It might be (more or less) so considered since Marbury v. Madison in 1803 (technically five has been a majority since 1837 when the court expanded to nine justices, excepting the years 1863-1865 when it had ten justices and would have required six to make a majority).
I'd set it up and get snared in the software issues, which I don't understand. And then would end up liable because somebody posted something I didn't approve of or know about.
No. Since the Cali constitution says nothing on gun rights, it means the people have not protected themselves from the Cali government authority to mess with their gun rights.
Since the Cali constitution says nothing on gun rights, it means the people have not protected themselves from the Cali government authority to mess with their gun rights. No. Such interpretation is directly contrary to the Cali constitution since 1849. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1 CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION In criminal cases the rights of a defendant to equal protection of the laws, to due process of law, to the assistance of counsel, to be personally present with counsel, to a speedy and public trial, to compel the attendance of witnesses, to confront the witnesses against him or her, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, to privacy, to not be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself, to not be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense, and to not suffer the imposition of cruel or unusual punishment, shall be construed by the courts of this State in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States. This Constitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States, nor shall it be construed to afford greater rights to minors in juvenile proceedings on criminal causes than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States. This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people. In Cali's constitution of 1849, Article 1, Section 21 provided:
Watch one of the newer Batman movies. You'll see why people razz you with that. It looks like a mini-Batbike.
I agree. But where does it say the people have the right to use a gun to accomplish that? Or did you simply read that into it? In the penumbra of an emanation. What about the right to own property? If I can't afford property, can I read into it that the state has to give me some? After all, I do have the right to own it.
Amusingly enough, both of you assume that the people of California can delegate away their inalienable rights. "Inalienable" means these rights CANNOT be infringed.. Just as the Fed and State constitutions say: --- CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
U.S. Constitution limits states' rights and powers www.dec http://aturdaily.com/deca...pinion/other/050410.shtml ^ | 7/10/06 | W.S. Dixon Posted on 7/11/2006, 4:03:24 PM by tpaine U.S. Constitution limits states' rights and powers Following is the fifth in a series of columns by members of the Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform. By W.S. Dixon Several articles in the Constitution of the United States (especially Article IV) as well as several of the amendments to the Constitution (especially the 14th Amendment) apply to the state governments. In fact the following provision of the 14th Amendment reaches back and makes the 1st Amendment apply to the states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction of the equal protection of the laws." This then makes the five freedoms guaranteed in the 1st Amendment --- religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition --- apply in the states. If the Supreme Court of the United States had not made this interpretation of the above clauses in the 14th Amendment, the states would have been free to restrict religious freedom and even establish a particular religion as the official state religion, to prohibit any desired variety of speech, to limit or prohibit the printing or disseminating of any information the state decided was not allowed, to prohibit or restrict meetings of any kind as the legislature desired, and to prohibit or restrict access to state public officials. Other restrictions on the states are specifically stated in the U.S. Constitution in Article I Section 10. In addition, because of the powers assigned to the Congress, the states cannot regulate commerce with foreign countries nor with other states, nor can they naturalize citizens, fix standards of weights and measures, declare war, nor raise or support an army or navy. Although we refer to the states within the United States by that designation, they do not meet the criterion of sovereign states because they do not have the power to provide protection from outside interference as indicated by the restrictions listed above. State constitutions are limited, in part as a result of these restrictions. States do, however, have the ability to regulate all other levels of government situated within their territory
In Amendment 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the people identified their pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, and explicitly withheld any grant of power to the Federal government to infringe upon that right. The right to keep and bear arms was brought with them into the Union established by the U.S. Constitution. The government of California has only such powers as the people of California have delegated to it. Unless you can come up with some delegation of power to the state government, it does not have it. It is a government of delegated powers, not almighty government powers. All power belongs to the people in their sovereign capacity (as distinct from the capacity as citizens of the state or country). What the people do not delegate to the Federal or State government are the Amendment 10 powers reserved to the people. Of course you can read into the state constitution that the state has to give you some property. You can read it to say that you have the right to own such property that you cannot afford to pay for. You may smoke medicinal pot and imagine other pleasant things as well. You can even go to court and argue you had a vision. The court will give you its opinion whether your vision has legal merit.
[...] Several articles in the Constitution of the United States (especially Article IV) as well as several of the amendments to the Constitution (especially the 14th Amendment) apply to the state governments. In fact the following provision of the 14th Amendment reaches back and makes the 1st Amendment apply to the states: I believe Dixon misses his target. The BoR placed limits on the powers Federal government. Incorporating elements of the BoR to the States only places those limits on State government. That did not affect State sovereignty. It did affect the powers of sovereignty which States agree not to exercise while members of the constitutional union. In the Panama Canal Zone treaty, sovereign Panama delegated to the United States all its sovereign powers of jurisdiction. Powers were delegated, not sovereignty. The treaty stated that the United States could exercise jurisdiction as if it were the sovereign. This effected no change in the sovereignty of Panama over the Canal Zone. Panama agreed not to exercise certain sovereign powers, but the sovereignty never left Panama. While I agree with the conclusion that states can no longer claim to meet the definition of sovereign states, I reach that conclusion on a basis not cited. One of the elements of sovereignty is the self-determination of the citizenry. The 14th provides that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. That dictates to the States who is a citizen of the State. Previously, the path to U.S. citizenship was through citizenship of a State.
Then why even mention the California constitution if the people of California look to the second amendment for their protection? "The government of California has only such powers as the people of California have delegated to it. Unless you can come up with some delegation of power to the state government, it does not have it." The government of California, by definition, has police powers -- "the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants." So, if California decides to ban handguns for the safety of their citizens, they are allowed. Unless the state constitution protects the right to keep and bear handguns. Which it does not. "The court will give you its opinion whether your vision has legal merit." Yes they will. And we have to honor their interpretation, right?
Pffft! The free speech clause didn't apply to the states until 1925 following Gitlow v. New York. Freedom of religion (the Establishment Clause) didn't apply to the states until 1947 following Everson v. Board of Education. Freedom of the press applied to the states in 1931 following the decision in Near v. Minnesota, and freedom of assembly applied to the states in 1937 following DeJonge v. Oregon. As a reminder, the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868.
Dixon says: --- You are ignoring the specific limits placed on States and their constitutions by the Supremacy Clause of Article VI. -- Misterwhite even scoffs at them. Taken overall, our Constitution clearly protects the people's inalienable rights (to arms, among others) from infringements by ANY level of our governments. Why this is disputed by some americans is beyond understanding, imho. Do you have an answer? - Anyone?
Because of its explicit provision indicating your attempted strained interpretation of Cali law is impossible.
The BoR, where incorporated, protects from certain infringements pursuant to the 14th Amdt. Prior, it had no applicability to the states. Where the Federal government was not delegated some jurisdiction and power, the States could be delegated such power by their citizens. So, for example, Amendment 5 provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger...." States routine prosecute capital offenses and other crimes by way of an information. The grand jury requirement only applies to Federal jurisdiction. Inalienable rights are cited in a political document, the Declaration of Independence, which has no force at law. Anything in the Constitution is very alienable by an amendment.
Your quote is of tpaine at #29, not me.
I once had the idea to do something like that, but lost it.
You are ignoring the specific limits placed on States and their constitutions by the Supremacy Clause of Article VI. -- Taken overall, our Constitution clearly protects the people's inalienable rights (to arms, among others) from infringements by ANY level of our governments. Again, you ignore Article VI, wherein the supremacy clause applies the entire US constitution and the BOR's to the States, and to their constitutions. Amendments or 'laws' that alienate away our basic human rights would be null and void from enactment. Marbury v Madison made that point very clear. Why do you WANT to give a majority the ability to 'alienate by amendment'?
I know. But I don't post to that dickwad.
The one about "defending life and liberty"? You call that an explicit provision? You think that provision means any person in California has the explicit right to use any weapon they want to defend their life and liberty? You sure do read a lot into 4 words. Sorry. That phrase says nothing of the sort. You have the God-given right to self-defense. That doesn't mean you have the right to use a gun to do so.
Comments (42 - 60) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestTwo justices, however, did speak out in opposition to the Court's refusal to get involved. Writing in dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, accused his colleagues of undermining Heller and failing to give the Second Amendment its constitutional due. Here's a portion of Thomas' dissent:
#2. To: GrandIsland (#1)
#3. To: A K A Stone (#2)
(Edited)
#4. To: GrandIsland, gatlin, misterwhite, Y'ALL (#1)
I thought you said Kookifornia was soon to be improving?
Willingly and intentionally are the way you like your tyranny served.
Here in Pa, we don't have to leave out handguns home or have to have a permit or license to carry them.
#5. To: tpaine (#4)
(Edited)
Silly comment, seeing that I'm against big govt tyranny
#6. To: GrandIsland (#5)
Willingly and intentionally are the way you like your tyranny served.
Then why live in a state you have to beg to own a handgun?
Not so silly... you don't have half the patriotic principles I have... it you'd move away from everybody you've ever known just to avoid paying taxes toward your own nazi gun laws... LIKE I DID.
#7. To: tpaine (#6)
(Edited)
From how you've described your law enforcement career, I'd bet that you moved away from everyone you've known out of fear of retribution, now that you've lost the badge
#8. To: GrandIsland (#7)
--- it you'd move away from everybody you've ever known just to avoid paying taxes toward your own nazi gun laws... LIKE I DID.
You say a lot of ignorant shit to avoid why you willingly lick the boots of Kookifornia.
#9. To: tpaine (#8)
(Edited)
Rave on kiddo. Actually I don't believe any of your stories. You're probably some cop wannabe, posting from your mother's basement.
#10. To: GrandIsland (#9)
I really don't give a shit what you believe about me. It's not about me. It's about YOU. You do believe you live in Kookifornia, don't you?
WHY? If you loath tyranny, and there are MANY states with low taxes and no gun restrictions, why stay in Kookifornia?
You are a statist, aren't ya?
You must enjoy it. Are you incarcerated and you can't leave?
#11. To: tpaine (#10)
Family, friends, -- and the fact that most areas of the state are not 'kookie' at all. -- I live in Plumas County, a little slice of heaven, with mostly good people.
#12. To: GrandIsland, gatlin, misterwhite, Y'ALL (#11)
---don't ever question my hatred for big brother because I was a cop...
I've done what you refuse to do.
#13. To: tpaine (#0)
SCOTUS Refuses to Hear Major Gun Rights Case, Clarence Thomas Files Sharp Dissent
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
If the facts of the San Francisco case sound familiar it is because they correspond so closely to the facts at issue in the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that decision, the Court voided not only D.C.'s ban on handguns, it also voided D.C.'s requirement that all firearms kept at home be "unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device." According to Heller, the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep a "lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."
Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
SUMMARY*
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.
#14. To: tpaine (#0)
(Edited)
The case is Jackson v. San Francisco. Justice Thomas' dissent from denial of certiorari is available here.
#15. To: tpaine, GrandIsland (#10)
#16. To: nolu chan (#13)
#17. To: nolu chan (#13)
#18. To: GrandIsland (#1)
#19. To: nolu chan, misterwhite, too conservative, y'all (#18)
The legal question is not whether the law is stupid, but whether the State has the power to issue and enforce it. --- SCOTUS chose not to take up this issue at this time. There is no SCOTUS opinion. This is the summary of the 9th Circuit opinion in Jackson that SCOTUS allowed to stand. If another circuit decides differently, SCOTUS could decide to take it up at a future date.
#20. To: TooConservative (#15)
#21. To: misterwhite (#17)
So what does the California state constitution say about their citizens' right to keep and bear arms?
#22. To: misterwhite, GrandIsland (#18)
As I have been warning ever since Heller -- the second amendment is now whatever 5 justices on the U.S. Supreme Court says it is, and their interpretation applies to all 50 states.
#23. To: TooConservative (#16)
I urged Vicomte to do the same for years but never could get him interested.
#24. To: nolu chan (#21)
"If the Cali constitution says nothing on gun rights, it means the people have not delegated to the Cali government any of their authority to mess with their gun rights."
#25. To: misterwhite (#24)
No.
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
SEC. 24. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
SEC. 21. This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.
#26. To: tpaine (#20)
Getting real tired of the batman and robin nit wit comments though. "Where's Robin?" is the most common.
#27. To: nolu chan (#25)
"inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty"
#28. To: nolu chan, misterwhite, both wrong, as usual. (#25)
nolu chan (#21) ---- "If the Cali constitution says nothing on gun rights, it means the people have not delegated to the Cali government any of their authority to mess with their gun rights."
Since the Cali constitution says nothing on gun rights, it means the people have not protected themselves from the Cali government authority to mess with their gun rights. ---- misterwhite
#29. To: All, nolu chan, misterwhite, Y'ALL (#28)
#30. To: misterwhite (#27)
[California Constitution] SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
I agree. But where does it say the people have the right to use a gun to accomplish that? Or did you simply read that into it? In the penumbra of an emanation.
What about the right to own property? If I can't afford property, can I read into it that the state has to give me some? After all, I do have the right to own it.
#31. To: tpaine, misterwhite (#29)
U.S. Constitution limits states' rights and powers
Although we refer to the states within the United States by that designation, they do not meet the criterion of sovereign states because they do not have the power to provide protection from outside interference as indicated by the restrictions listed above.
#32. To: nolu chan (#30)
"In Amendment 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the people identified their pre-existing right to keep and bear arms"
#33. To: nolu chan (#31)
"In fact the following provision of the 14th Amendment reaches back and makes the 1st Amendment apply to the states:"
#34. To: nolu chan, misterwhite, too conservative, y'all (#31)
Several articles in the Constitution of the United States (especially Article IV) as well as several of the amendments to the Constitution (especially the 14th Amendment) apply to the state governments. In fact the following provision of the 14th Amendment reaches back and makes the 1st Amendment apply to the states:
Chan --- I believe Dixon misses his target. The BoR placed limits on the powers Federal government. Incorporating elements of the BoR to the States only places those limits on State government.
That did not affect State sovereignty. It did affect the powers of sovereignty which States agree not to exercise while members of the constitutional union. ---- ----- Although we refer to the states within the United States by that designation, they do not meet the criterion of sovereign states because they do not have the power to provide protection from outside interference as indicated by the restrictions listed above. ---- While I agree with the conclusion that states can no longer claim to meet the definition of sovereign states, I reach that conclusion on a basis not cited.
#35. To: misterwhite (#32)
Then why even mention the California constitution if the people of California look to the second amendment for their protection?
#36. To: tpaine (#34)
Taken overall, our Constitution clearly protects the people's inalienable rights (to arms, among others) from infringements by ANY level of our governments.
#37. To: misterwhite (#33)
"In fact the following provision of the 14th Amendment reaches back and makes the 1st Amendment apply to the states:"
#38. To: TooConservative (#16)
I would urge you to set up some blog site, like a free Wordpress site, just to archive your posts. It seems a shame they get posted here where they could be taken offline and disappear.
#39. To: nolu chan (#36)
Chan --- I believe Dixon misses his target. The BoR placed limits on the powers Federal government. Incorporating elements of the BoR to the States only places those limits on State government.
The BoR, where incorporated, protects from certain infringements pursuant to the 14th Amdt. Prior, it had no applicability to the states.
Where the Federal government was not delegated some jurisdiction and power, the States could be delegated such power by their citizens. ---- Inalienable rights are cited in a political document, the Declaration of Independence, which has no force at law. --- Anything in the Constitution is very alienable by an amendment.
#40. To: nolu chan (#37)
"Your quote is of tpaine at #29, not me."
#41. To: nolu chan (#35)
"Because of its explicit provision ..."
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]