Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
In the case Nordyke v. King, the 9th Circus Court of Appeals has just handed down a ruling saying that the 2nd amendment is now "incorporated". That means, its ban on infringing on the right to own guns etc., is now a ban against State and Local governments, as well as the Federal govt.
See the text of the decision at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf . The actual language about incorporation is on Page 29.
That's not the Supreme Court saying it, of course, but maybe they will be next(?).
But hearing the ultra-leftist 9th Circuit saying that, is like hearing Iranian President Ahmadinejihad announcing that Jews should have a full state and be treated equally with Muslims.
Even a blind squirrel finds on occasional acorn. How nice the 9th Circus found this one!
BTW, what it means is:
The 14th amendment was originally passed to prevent Southern states from taking away the rights of former slaves. But its language says that no state can take away any rights that ANY U.S. citizen enjoys.
This has been widely misinterpreted to mean that even laws that were clearly meant to apply ONLY to the Federal government, now apply to the states and municipal governments too.
A classic example is the 1st Amendment. It clearly says "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or...(several other restrictions on what Congress can pass)". It was plainly meant to apply only to the Fed govt, and not to the states, which it why it names Congress ONLY.
A look at history provides the reason WHY the 1st was written only for the Fed and not for the states: At the time it was written, a number of states had official state religions, and the 1st was written specifically to accommodate them; while prohibiting the Fed from upsetting those religions by declaring a "national religion" that was different from them; and banning the Fed from prohibiting any particular religion (private or state).
The idea of "incorporation" is based on the (sometimes mistaken) notion that all rights described in the Bill of Rights, were originally to be enforced on the Fed govt but not the states. That notion is correct for the 1st amendment, but not for some others (such as the 2nd). And so when a court says that such-and-such amendment is now also binding on state and local governments too, that amendment is now "incorporated".
It's basically a mistaken agenda. Some amendments were indeed intended to be binding on the Fed only (such as the 1st, says so in the first five words), while others were intended to be binding on ALL governments within the borders of the U.S. (such as the 2nd).
And the amendments like the 1st, should NEVER be "incorporated" to coerce state and local governments, unless the Constitution is further amended to do that explicitly.
And amendments like the 2nd, should never have been interpreted in the first place as though it applied ONLY to the Fed, when in fact the 2nd says the RKBA can never be infringed, and makes no attempt to confine this restriction to only the Fed govt as the 1st does.
"Incorporation" is completely unnecessary. All the amendments that were intended to apply only to the Fed govt, already say so right in the amendment, and must not be arbitrarily messed with. And all the amendments that were intended to apply to ALL governments in the U.S., already say that (by not restricting which govts they apply to), so no "incorporation" is needed and never has been.
Most courts choose to believe otherwise, however, despite the clear language of the Constitution. Usually the result of "incorporation" is good, though the procedure is kooky: Amendments wrongly believed to apply only to the Fed, are now declared to apply to all governments.
But occasionally the result is bad. For example, state-run schools are often forbidden to teach or even address religion, though in fact the 1st amendment does NOT prohibit the states from doing so. Remember that the 1st was DESIGNED to allow the states to keep their own state religions if they wanted to.
In the case of this 9th Circus Court decision, the result is good. The 2nd amendment (which has been wrongly believed to apply only to the Fed govt despite having no wording to that effect), is now declared to apply to the Fed, states, and municipalities: NONE of them can infringe the RKBA. This is what the Framers intended all along, of course, and is even what they wrote into the 2nd, more than 200 years ago. But at least it's nice that the 9th Circus court finally agrees.
Now, if we can only get the Supreme Court to agree too, we might actually have something we can enforce. Or at least, we will have knocked a major leg out of the left's constant agenda to ban guns from law-abiding citizens. Recall that most gun-control laws are state and local laws; only a few are Federal. If we can finally persuade people that the 2nd prohibits states and local govts from restricting guns, it will be a major step forward. Who cares if they used the "wrong" method to get to the right result?
See the text of the decision at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf . The actual language about incorporation is on Page 29.
That's not the Supreme Court saying it, of course, but maybe they will be next(?).
But hearing the ultra-leftist 9th Circuit saying that, is like hearing Iranian President Ahmadinejihad announcing that Jews should have a full state and be treated equally with Muslims.
Even a blind squirrel finds on occasional acorn. How nice the 9th Circus found this one!
BTW, what it means is:
The 14th amendment was originally passed to prevent Southern states from taking away the rights of former slaves. But its language says that no state can take away any rights that ANY U.S. citizen enjoys.
This has been widely misinterpreted to mean that even laws that were clearly meant to apply ONLY to the Federal government, now apply to the states and municipal governments too.
A classic example is the 1st Amendment. It clearly says "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or...(several other restrictions on what Congress can pass)". It was plainly meant to apply only to the Fed govt, and not to the states, which it why it names Congress ONLY.
A look at history provides the reason WHY the 1st was written only for the Fed and not for the states: At the time it was written, a number of states had official state religions, and the 1st was written specifically to accommodate them; while prohibiting the Fed from upsetting those religions by declaring a "national religion" that was different from them; and banning the Fed from prohibiting any particular religion (private or state).
The idea of "incorporation" is based on the (sometimes mistaken) notion that all rights described in the Bill of Rights, were originally to be enforced on the Fed govt but not the states. That notion is correct for the 1st amendment, but not for some others (such as the 2nd). And so when a court says that such-and-such amendment is now also binding on state and local governments too, that amendment is now "incorporated".
It's basically a mistaken agenda. Some amendments were indeed intended to be binding on the Fed only (such as the 1st, says so in the first five words), while others were intended to be binding on ALL governments within the borders of the U.S. (such as the 2nd).
And the amendments like the 1st, should NEVER be "incorporated" to coerce state and local governments, unless the Constitution is further amended to do that explicitly.
And amendments like the 2nd, should never have been interpreted in the first place as though it applied ONLY to the Fed, when in fact the 2nd says the RKBA can never be infringed, and makes no attempt to confine this restriction to only the Fed govt as the 1st does.
"Incorporation" is completely unnecessary. All the amendments that were intended to apply only to the Fed govt, already say so right in the amendment, and must not be arbitrarily messed with. And all the amendments that were intended to apply to ALL governments in the U.S., already say that (by not restricting which govts they apply to), so no "incorporation" is needed and never has been.
Most courts choose to believe otherwise, however, despite the clear language of the Constitution. Usually the result of "incorporation" is good, though the procedure is kooky: Amendments wrongly believed to apply only to the Fed, are now declared to apply to all governments.
But occasionally the result is bad. For example, state-run schools are often forbidden to teach or even address religion, though in fact the 1st amendment does NOT prohibit the states from doing so. Remember that the 1st was DESIGNED to allow the states to keep their own state religions if they wanted to.
In the case of this 9th Circus Court decision, the result is good. The 2nd amendment (which has been wrongly believed to apply only to the Fed govt despite having no wording to that effect), is now declared to apply to the Fed, states, and municipalities: NONE of them can infringe the RKBA. This is what the Framers intended all along, of course, and is even what they wrote into the 2nd, more than 200 years ago. But at least it's nice that the 9th Circus court finally agrees.
Now, if we can only get the Supreme Court to agree too, we might actually have something we can enforce. Or at least, we will have knocked a major leg out of the left's constant agenda to ban guns from law-abiding citizens. Recall that most gun-control laws are state and local laws; only a few are Federal. If we can finally persuade people that the 2nd prohibits states and local govts from restricting guns, it will be a major step forward. Who cares if they used the "wrong" method to get to the right result?
