[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: Peruta v San Diego Cty, no 2nd Amdt right to concealed Carry Source: 9th Circuit Court URL Source: [None] Published: Jun 9, 2016 Author: Circuit Judge W. Fletcher Post Date: 2016-06-09 16:48:27 by nolu chan Keywords: None Views: 32043 Comments: 127 Peruta v San Diego Cty, no 2nd Amdt right to concealed Carry Peruta et al v County of San Diego et al, 10-56971 (9th Cir, 9 Jul 2016) OPINION W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Under California law, a member of the general public may not carry a concealed weapon in public unless he or she has been issued a license. An applicant for a license must satisfy a number of conditions. Among other things, the applicant must show “good cause” to carry a concealed firearm. California law authorizes county sheriffs to establish and publish policies defining good cause. The sheriffs of San Diego and Yolo Counties published policies defining good cause as requiring a particularized reason why an applicant needs a concealed firearm for self-defense. Appellants, who live in San Diego and Yolo Counties, allege that they wish to carry concealed firearms in public for self-defense, but that they do not satisfy the good cause requirements in their counties. They contend that their counties’ definitions of good cause violate their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. They particularly rely on the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 69. #1. To: nolu chan (#0) "We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public." The U.S. Supreme Court in Heller said nothing about concealed carry. Meaning the lower courts are free to interpret "bear arms" as they see fit. Their decisions, of course, only apply to their jurisdiction. misterwhite  posted on  2016-06-09   17:18:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: misterwhite (#1) The U.S. Supreme Court in Heller said nothing about concealed carry. Meaning the lower courts are free to interpret "bear arms" as they see fit. Their decisions, of course, only apply to their jurisdiction. Heller incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the Federal District of Columbia in 2008, but left the status of incorporation against the States undeclared. Opinion of the Court by Scalia. McDonald incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the States in 2010. Opinion of the Court by Alito. While the right to keep and bear arms in protected by the 2nd Amendment, the amendment does not state, claim, or imply that it either created or defined the right to keep and bear arms. The Framers felt no need to define what were, to them, the well known terms of English common law which had prevailed in the colonies and which were carried forth in the States after the revolution. The 2nd Amendment makes no allusion of the right to carry concealed weapons. I know of no law specifically for or against concealed carry from that era. The earliest concealed carry laws appear to have cropped up in 1813 in Kentucky and Louisiana. At the time, the 2nd Amendment did not apply to the States. Concealed carry may just not have been an issue back before the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Heller and McDonald make clear that the right to keep and bear arms is rooted in the English common law and that "the right to keep and bear arms is not 'a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.'" Under Heller and McDonald it appears that there is nothing prohibiting a State from regulating or prohibiting the concealed carry of handguns. Prohibiting the carrying of handguns was held unconstitutional, but allowing open carry satisfies that. Of course, if Hillary appoints three or four justices to the Supreme Court, it may find that "common sense" regulations disarming United States civilians are lawfully justified by some emanation from some penumbra. McDonald at 20-21: Heller makes it clear that this right is “deeply rooted inthis Nation’s history and tradition.” Glucksberg, supra, at 721 (internal quotation marks omitted). Heller explored the right’s origins, noting that the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right to keep arms for self defense, 554 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 19–20), and that by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right to keep and bear arms was “one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen,” id., at ___ (slip op., at 20). Blackstone’s assessment was shared by the American colonists. As we noted in Heller, King George III’s attempt to disarm the colonists in the 1760’s and 1770’s “provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms.” [16] Id., at ___ (slip op., at 21); see also L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 137–143(1999) (hereinafter Levy). The right to keep and bear arms was considered no less fundamental by those who drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights. “During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or selectmilitia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric.” __________ [16] For example, an article in the Boston Evening Post stated: “For it is certainly beyond human art and sophistry, to prove the British subjects, to whom the privilege of possessing arms is expressly recognized by the Bill of Rights, and, who live in a province where the law requires them to be equip’d with arms, &c. are guilty of an illegal act, in calling upon one another to be provided with them, as the law directs.” Boston Evening Post, Feb. 6, 1769, in Boston Under Military Rule 1768–1769, p. 61 (1936) (emphasis deleted). McDonald at 39-40: It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatorymeasures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “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.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here.Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. McDonald at 40: Municipal respondents suggest that the Second Amendment right differs from the rights heretofore incorporated because the latter were “valued for[their] own sake.” Id., at 33. But we have never previously suggested that incorporation of a right turns on whether it has intrinsic as opposed to instrumental value, and quite a few of the rights previously held to be incorporated—for example the right to counsel and the right to confront and subpoena witnesses—are clearly instrumental by any measure. Moreover, this contention repackages one of the chief arguments that we rejected in Heller, i.e., that the scope of the Second Amendment right is defined by the immediate threat that led to the inclusion of that right in the Bill of Rights. In Heller, we recognized that the codification of this right was prompted by fear that the Federal Government would disarm and thus disable the militias, but we rejected the suggestion that the right was valued only as a means of preserving the militias. 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26). On the contrary, we stressed that the right was also valued because the possession of firearms was thought to be essential for self-defense. As we put it, self-defense was “the central component of the right itself.” Ibid. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-10   1:29:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: nolu chan (#2) "The earliest concealed carry laws appear to have cropped up in 1813 in Kentucky and Louisiana" And I believe those laws were against concealed carry, since the only reason to conceal a weapon was evil intent (or some such reasoning). misterwhite  posted on  2016-06-10   9:06:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: misterwhite (#4) Georgia had a statute of 1837 overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court in 1846. Here the court found banning concealed carry was acceptable, but banning open carry was not. The Georgia case involved both the Federal and State constitutions. A law which merely inhibits the wearing of certain weapons in a concealed manner is valid. But so far as it cuts off the exercise of the right of the citizen altogether to bear arms, or, under the color of prescribing the mode, renders the right itself useless, it is in conflict with the Constitution, and void. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-10   16:50:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: nolu chan, misterwhite, roscoe, Y'ALL --- Three Amigos against our gun rights... (#7) nolu chan (#2) --- "The earliest concealed carry laws appear to have cropped up in 1813 in Kentucky and Louisiana" And I believe those laws were against concealed carry, since the only reason to conceal a weapon was evil intent (or some such reasoning). --- misterwhite (#4) NOLU ----Georgia had a statute of 1837 overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court in 1846. Here the court found banning concealed carry was acceptable, but banning open carry was not. The Georgia case involved both the Federal and State constitutions. A law which merely inhibits the wearing of certain weapons in a concealed manner is valid. But so far as it cuts off the exercise of the right of the citizen altogether to bear arms, or, under the color of prescribing the mode, renders the right itself useless, it is in conflict with the Constitution, and void. And, of course, the Constitution last mentioned above in Nunn, ---- was the US CONSTITUTION. Which infuriates you three amigos, who advocate that States can infringe on our gun rights. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-10   19:57:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: tpaine, misterwhite, roscoe (#8) And, of course, the Constitution last mentioned above in Nunn, ---- was the US CONSTITUTION. Which infuriates you three amigos, who advocate that States can infringe on our gun rights. Of course, Nunn found it constitutional to ban concealed carry. And, the Georgia state court in 1846 cannot overrule the precedent set, and still in effect, by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in 1833. To the extent that Nunn is in conflict with Barron, it is null and void. I was well aware of this statement in Nunn and was just waiting for you to demostrate your ignorance. Thanks for playing, loser. Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 247-48 (1833) Opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Marshall (7-0) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/case.html U.S. Supreme Court Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833) ON WRIT OF ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND Syllabus The provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States. The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of individual States. [...] Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the court. [...] The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes. If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the General Government, not as applicable to the States. [...] The counsel for the plaintiff in error insists that the Constitution was intended to secure the people of the several States against the undue exercise of power by their respective State governments, as well as against that which might be attempted by their General Government. In support of this argument he relies on the inhibitions contained in the tenth section of the first article. We think that section affords a strong, if not a conclusive, argument in support of the opinion already indicated by the court. The preceding section contains restrictions which are obviously intended for the exclusive purpose of restraining the exercise of power by the departments of the General Government. Some of them use language applicable only to Congress, others are expressed in general terms. The third clause, for example, declares, that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." No language can be more general, yet the demonstration is complete that it applies solely to the Government of the United States. In addition to the general arguments furnished by the instrument itself, some of which have been already suggested, the succeeding section, the avowed purpose of which is to restrain State legislation, contains in terms the very prohibition. It declares, that "no State shall pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law." This provision, then, of the ninth section, however comprehensive its language, contains no restriction on State legislation. The ninth section having enumerated, in the nature of a bill of rights, the limitations intended to be imposed on the powers of the General Government, the tenth proceeds to enumerate those which were to operate on the State legislatures. These restrictions are brought together in the same section, and are by express words applied to the States. "No State shall enter into any treaty," &c. Perceiving, that in a constitution framed by the people of the United States, for the government of all, no limitation of the action of government on the people would apply to the State government, unless expressed in terms, the restrictions contained in the tenth section are in direct words so applied to the States. There is no doubt about what Barron said. Montañez v. State Ins. Fund, 91 F.Supp.3d 291 (D.P.R. 2015) The Fifth Amendment's Due Process right stems from the following provision: “[n]o person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...” U.S. Const. amend. V. However, the Supreme Court interpreted the first ten amendments of the constitution (the Bill of Rights) to be enforceable only against the federal government. Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 7 Pet. 243, 8 L.Ed. 672 (1833) (“The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states.”). Subsequently, the Fourteenth Amendment—which contains its own Due Process clause—was enacted. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (emphasis provided). U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-11   1:16:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: nolu chan (#11) (Edited) AMERICUS, JULY TERM, 1846 251 Nunn vs. The State of Georgia The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States. Hey shithead, There you go again with the juvenile name calling. -- Whatta clown.. -- link to any post where I said that "prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States." The thread is: The Ninth Circuit: Right to Bear Arms Includes Right to Acquire Arms --- With #110 posts, look it up yourself. And, the Georgia state court in 1846 cannot overrule They aren't 'overruling' anything. Just issuing their opinion. --- Ithe precedent set, and still in effect, by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in 1833. To the extent that Nunn is in conflict with Barron, it is null and void. So you NOW contend that the SCOTUS of 1833 could void a State opinion about the 2nd? I was well aware of this statement in Nunn and was just waiting for you to demostrate your ignorance. Thanks for playing, loser. Bullshit. You've been outed for the phony that you are. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-11   1:49:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: tpaine (#12) So you NOW contend that the SCOTUS of 1833 could void a State opinion about the 2nd?. No, in all cases since there has been a Federal court system, any State court holding about anything, including about the 2nd Amendent, in conflict with any Federal court opinion, is overturned and rendered null and void by the Federal court opinion. I said that the State court opinion of 1846 that you cited (Nunn) could not overrule the precedent set the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court (Barron) in 1833. To the extent that the State court opinion (Nunn) was in conflict with the SCOTUS opinion (Barron), it (Nunn) was null and void. nolu chan at #11: And, the Georgia state court in 1846 cannot overrule the precedent set, and still in effect, by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in 1833. To the extent that Nunn is in conflict with Barron, it is null and void. I said that Obergefell "overturned every State law and State court opinion contrary to Obergefell. nolu chan #40: Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell overturned every State law and State court opinion contrary to Obergefell, and made gay marriage legal in all 50 states. Continuing at nolu chan #40: Do you think a State court could issue a valid opinion and overturn Obergefell and find gay marriage in that State to be unlawful? Answer the question, IF you can. It is rather obvious that yours is a pitiful effort to obfuscate the fact that you are unable to answer the return question. Damn, you are pitiful. You are so much like yukon, you are yukon. And you are a dishonorable asshole. Why don't you know if "you think a State court could issue a valid opinion and overturn Obergefell and find gay marriage in that State to be unlawful?" tpaine at #9: Nunn vs. The State of Georgia The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States. You are the shithead who claimed that a State court opinion (Nunn 1846) overruled the holding of a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court holding (Barron 1833). Way to go, shithead. nolu chan at #10: Hey shithead, link to any post where I said that "prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States." You have not and cannot link to any such post and have failed to do so. Your horseshit at #12 did not do so, in your usual bullshit way when you are a cornered cockroach and have no answer. tpaine content free bullshit at #12: The thread is: The Ninth Circuit: Right to Bear Arms Includes Right to Acquire Arms --- With #110 posts, look it up yourself. You couldn't do it, could you, shithead. As previously stated, I will never fail to show you the respect I feel you deserve. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-12   23:16:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: nolu chan (#45) He loves Nunn because it asserts that concealed weapons bans are permissible under the Second Amendment. He's a closet gun grabber. Roscoe  posted on  2016-06-13   13:56:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #51. To: Roscoe (#48) He loves Nunn because it asserts that concealed weapons bans are permissible under the Second Amendment. He's a closet gun grabber. If that were why the incompetent nutcase loves a State court opinion, he would be far better served citing Federal U.S. Supreme Court opinions. Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281-82 (1897) (7-1) The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (Art. V) does not prevent a second trial if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion, United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 163 U. S. 627, nor does the provision of the same article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon, or by statutory enactment, Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, and cases cited. Nor does the provision that an accused person shall be confronted with the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died since the former trial. - - - - - Heller 554 US 570, 626 (2008) Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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.[Footnote 26] [Footnote 26] We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive. McDonald, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) Slip op. at 11: In the late 19th century, the Court began to considerwhether the Due Process Clause prohibits the States frominfringing rights set out in the Bill of Rights. See Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516 (1884) (due process does not require grand jury indictment); Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226 (1897) (due process prohibits States from taking of private property for public use without just compensation). Five features of the approach taken during the ensuing era should be noted. First, the Court viewed the due process question as entirely separate from the question whether a right was aprivilege or immunity of national citizenship. See Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 99 (1908). Second, the Court explained that the only rights protected against state infringement by the Due Process Clause were those rights “of such a nature that they are included in the conception of due process of law.” Ibid. See also, e.g., Adamson v. California, 332 U. S. 46 (1947); Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455 (1942); Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319 (1937); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233 (1936); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45 (1932). While it was “possible that some of the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against National action [might] also be safeguarded against state action,” the Court stated, this was “not because those rights are enumerated in the first eight Amendments.” Twining, supra, at 99. Slip op. at 39: It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “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.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-13   16:41:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: nolu chan, and the Klan, --- Have they no shame? (#51) We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “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.” There you see it agAin, sports fans, the canary Klan trying to justify their support for gun free zones, -- by quoting Heller. Have they no shame? tpaine  posted on  2016-06-13   17:16:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #55. To: tpaine, yukon, but i repeat myself (#53) There you see it agAin, sports fans, the canary Klan trying to justify their support for gun free zones, -- by quoting Heller. There you have it again, sports fans. tpaine proven full of shit by three SCOTUS opinions and a bullshit non-response. [tpaine #9] The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States. Numbnuts asserted that a State court opinion destroyed the still standing 1833 precedent set by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Barron v. Baltimore, with thousands of supporting Federal opinions since. Numbnuts hallucinates that a State court can overrule the U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution. Of course, I never claimed there was "NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States." tpaine and some misguided souls have such opinions. tpaine and his clueless opinions do not overrule the U.S. Supreme Court. The Federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution and its interpretation is the supreme law of the land. Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958): Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme Law of the Land.” In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) set a standing precedent which is now 213 years old. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-13   17:53:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: nolu chan has no shame ---- (#55) We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “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.” There you see it agAin, sports fans, the canary Klan trying to justify their support for gun free zones, -- by quoting Heller. Have they no shame? There you have it again, sports fans. tpaine proven full of shit by three SCOTUS opinions --- How many times must you be told? --- SCOTUS opinions do not change the words of the 2nd. - It must not be infringed. --- and a bullshit non-response. Your dreaming again. My response cleared up YOUR bullshit. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-13   18:33:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: tpaine (#56) (Edited) tpaine #9: "AMERICUS, JULY TERM, 1846 251. Nunn vs. The State of Georgia. The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States." Repeated at #12, #20 misterwhite and I were having a pleasant conversation about the early gun laws largely concerning concealed weapons. I provided the opinion in Nunn v. State 1 Kelly 243 (Ga. 1846). Nunn involved concealed weapons laws and spoke of the earlier Kentucky case, Bliss v. Commonwealth (Ky. 1822) and the Alabama case State v. Reid, (Ala. 1840), also involving state concealed weapons laws. Nunn is harmless. It does not destroy anybody's position on whether the Bill of Rights restrained the states prior to selective incorporation via the 14th Amendment. And then tpaine came along to defecate upon the thread, carryuing on an argument from another thread. As Nunn was clearly contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Barron v. Baltimore 32 U.S. 243 (1833), it could never survive legal challenge. tpaine continued to prattle on that the Supreme Court opinion made no difference and repeat that the state court opinion in Nunn destroyed by position that the Bill of Rights did not restrain the states prior to selective incorporation via the 14th Amendment. By an act of sheer good fortune, I not only have the opinion in Barron but I also have the Georgia Supreme Court opinion in State v. Hill, 53 Ga. 472 (1874). State v. Hill, 53 Ga. 472 (1874) 2. The other question made in this record is a far graver one. It is insisted that the act describing the offense charged and fixing the penalty, is an infringement of the right of the citizens of this state as guaranteed by the constitution of the United States and of this state. It is now well settled that the amendments to the constitution of the United States of March 4th, 1789, are all restrictions, not upon the states, but upon the United States. And this would seem to be the inevitable conclusion from the history of these amendments as well as from their nature and even their terms. I do not myself assent to that other limitation of the legislative powers of our general assembly insisted upon in the argument, and sometimes announced by courts, to-wit: the "higher law," which is appealed to as above even the constitution. At last, therefore, if this act be unconstitutional it must be because it is in conflict with our state constitution. Nunn, which was clearly contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Barron regarding a supposed application of the Bill of Rights to the states, was overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court 142 years ago. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-14   15:45:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #64. To: nolu chan (#63) There you see it again, sports fans, the canary Klan trying to justify their support for gun free zones, -- by quoting Heller. Have they no shame? There you have it again, sports fans. tpaine proven full of shit by three SCOTUS opinions --- How many times must you be told? --- SCOTUS opinions do not change the words of the 2nd. - It must not be infringed. Your latest reply, addressed to the above, rehashes the Nunn opinion.. Why? Must you be so obsessed? Get help. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-14   16:00:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #65. To: tpaine (#64) There you see it again, sports fans, the canary Klan trying to justify their support for gun free zones, -- by quoting Heller. There you see it again sports fans. tpaine trying to change the topic of discussion, this time to gun free zones (from his false claim that the BoR applied to the States since 1791). Notably, Heller was written by Scalia, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy. The dissent was by Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg. All of the conservative justices joined to make the Heller majority. All of the ultra liberals joined in dissent. tpaine joins the dissent. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 575-76 (2007): Respondent Dick Heller is a D. C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Thurgood Marshall Judiciary Building. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of “functional firearms within the home.” App. 59a. The District Court dismissed respondent’s complaint, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 311 F. Supp. 2d 103, 109 (2004). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, construing his complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it about his home in that condition only when necessary for self-defense, reversed, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370, 401 (2007). It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual 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. See id., at 395, 399–401. The Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for respondent. We granted certiorari. 552 U. S. 1035 (2007). Heller was about the right to keep and bear arms in one's home in the Federal District of Washington, D.C. Heller commented that "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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..." Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2007): III Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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.[26] [26] We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive. Prior to the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. Only afterward, did the courts selectively incorporate portions of the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment and make them applicable to the states. tpaine thinks he is the supreme authority in exposition of the law of the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court explicitly disagrees. Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958): Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme Law of the Land.” In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) set a standing precedent which is now 213 years old. One can see North Carolina in 1844 recognizing the precedential authority of the U.S. Supreme Court in Barron v. Baltimore in 1833 that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. State v. Newsom, 5 Iredell 181, 182, 27 N.C. 250, 251 (1844) Nash, J . We are of opinion there was error in the judgmeut pronounced by the presiding judge. On the argument here it has been urged that the act of 1840 (ch. 30) under which the defendant was prosecuted is unconstitutional, being in violation of Article II of the amended Constitution of the United States, and also of articles 3 and 17 of the Bill of Rights of this State. We do not agree to the correctness of either of these objections. The Constitution of the United States was ordained and established by the people of the United States for their own government and not for that of the different States. The limitations of power contained in it and expressed in general terms are necessarily confined to the General Government. It is now the settled construction of that instrument that no limitation upon the power of Government extends to or embraces the different States, unless they are mentioned, or it is expressed to be so intended. Barrow v. Baltimore, [sic - Barron] 7 Peters, 240; R. R. Davis, 19 N. C., 459. In Article II of the amended Constitution the States are neither mentioned nor referred to. It is, therefore, only restrictive of the powers of the Federal Government. And the beat goes on... Johnston v. Earle, 245 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1957) In Bell v. Hood, the refusal of the district court to consider this question, and its affirmance by the court of appeals3 was reversed, and the cause returned to the district court to determine whether the complaint stated a federal cause of action. 3 Bell v. Hood, 9 Cir., 1945, 150 F.2d 96. On its return to the district court, that court, in a very able opinion by Judge Mathes, held that no federal cause of action existed for the acts of federal officials violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.4 His reasoning is that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment applies only to the federal government,5 and not to individuals.6 4 Bell v. Hood, D.C.S.D.Cal. 1947, 71 F. Supp. 813. 5 That the Fifth Amendment applies only to the acts of the federal government is settled beyond doubt. See, e.g., Spies v. People of the State of Illinois, 1887, 123 U.S. 131, 166, 8 S.Ct. 21, 31 L.Ed. 80; Burdeau v. McDowell, 1921, 256 U.S. 465, 476, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L. Ed. 1048. In Feldman v. United States, 1944, 322 U.S. 487, 64 S.Ct. 1082, 88 L.Ed. 1408, the Court said: "* * * [F]or more than one hundred years, ever since Barron v. [Mayor and City Council of City of] Baltimore [1833], 7 Pet. 243 [ 32 U.S. 243], 8 L.Ed. 672, one of the principles of our Constitution has been that these [the Fourth and Fifth] Amendments protect only against invasion of civil liberties by the Government whose conduct they alone limit. Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 606, 16 S.Ct. 644, 650, 40 L.Ed. 819; Jack v. [State of] Kansas, 199 U.S. 372, 380, 26 S.Ct. 73, 75, 50 L.Ed. 234; Twining v. [State of] New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53 L.Ed. 97." 322 U.S. at page 490, 64 S.Ct. 1083. 6 Mr. Justice Black stated in Bell v. Hood that "whether federal courts can grant money recovery for damages said to have been suffered as a result of federal officers violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments" is a question which "has never been specifically decided by this Court." 327 U.S. at page 684, 66 S.Ct. 777. In Weeks v. United States, 1914, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652, however, the Supreme Court clearly indicated that there was no civil action for damages based upon the Fourth Amendment against officers who had violated it seizing plaintiff's property. Speaking of the possible nonfederal liability of the offending officers, the Court said: "What remedies the defendant may have against them we need not inquire, as the 4th Amendment is not directed to individual misconduct of such officials. Its limitations reach the Federal government and its agencies." 232 U.S. at page 398, 34 S.Ct. 346. In fine, the federal government has created no cause of action enforceable in its courts for such torts under the state law, and hence the district court here lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-15   16:31:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #66. To: nolu chan (#65) How many times must you be told? --- SCOTUS opinions do not change the words of the 2nd. - It must not be infringed. Your latest reply, addressed to the above, rehashes the Nunn opinion.. Why? ---- Must you be so obsessed? Get help. There you see it again sports fans. tpaine trying to change the topic of discussion, this time to gun free zones (from his false claim that the BoR applied to the States since 1791). The BOR'S applies to the States, --- thus States do NOT have the power to declare gun free zones. There you see it again sports fans, --- nolu is unable to even understand the concept under discussion. Poor fella really needs the help of mental health professionals. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-15   18:06:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #67. To: tpaine (#66) Poor fella really needs the help of mental health professionals. Id say any asshole that pays some of the highest property taxes to a state that shits on constitutional rights the most of the other 49.... and then posts on LF as a champion of constitutional rights... needs mental health, kookifonian. GrandIsland  posted on  2016-06-15   18:43:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #68. To: GrandIsland (#67) Id say any ---- that pays some of the highest property taxes to a state that shits on constitutional rights the most of the other 49.... and then posts on LF as a champion of constitutional rights... I'm renting a cabin in the mountains from a corporation (my son is one of the owners) that pays very little properly tax on our fixer upper resort acreage. -- Eat your heart out. And yes, I support our constitutional rights against you canary Klan weirdos. So get a life.. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-15   19:09:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #69. To: tpaine (#68) Your rent funds your tyranny. I'm sure your Christopher Dorner oven still has higher taxes than a mansion in Arizona. GrandIsland  posted on  2016-06-15   20:22:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 69. #70. To: GrandIsland (#69) Bizarro bullshit all ya got? Have another cocktail. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-15 20:33:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 69. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com