High-Profile Gun Rights Case Inches Toward Supreme Court
(IStockPhoto)
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is likely to decide whether the Second Amendment's guarantee of a right to "keep and bear arms" restricts only the federal government -- the current state of affairs -- or whether it can be used to strike down intrusive state and local laws too.
A three-judge panel ruled that the Second Amendment does apply to the states. But now a larger Ninth Circuit panel will rehear the case, a procedure reserved only for issues of exceptional importance, which means the earlier decision could be upheld or overruled.
Two other circuits have said the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, a legal term known as "incorporation." If the Ninth Circuit's en banc panel continues to disagree with its peers, the Supreme Court almost certainly would step in.
The Ninth Circuit case involves Russell and Sallie Nordyke, who run a gun show business that would like to rent Alameda County's fairgrounds (the county includes Oakland and is across the bay from San Francisco). After being blocked, they sued. The author of the ordinance in question, then-county supervisor Mary King, actually claimed such shows are nothing but "a place for people to display guns for worship as deities for the collectors who treat them as icons of patriotism."
The hearing is set for 10 a.m. PT in the federal courthouse at 95 Seventh Street in San Francisco.
A few other items:
California Update: I wrote an article three months ago about a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Calguns Foundation saying routine denials of concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. Oral arguments on a preliminary motion in that case are scheduled for the same day -- September 24 -- at 2 p.m. in Sacramento.
In a brief filed on Monday, Sacramento (one of the counties sued) says it wants more time to question the gun owners who filed the case to verify that they're in a position to sue. "Defendants seek to depose the individual plaintiffs on these issues to determine the basis of their alleged 'undisputed facts,' what process each plaintiff has engaged in to the end of obtaining a carry concealed permit in Sacramento County," it says.
Some Guns Are More Equal Than Others: Nobody has been hurt by the protesters who have legally carried guns to events where the president has been speaking, and I know of no evidence that they were even close enough to see the man.
Nevertheless, Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's non-voting Democratic rep in the U.S. House of Representatives, wants mandatory "gun-free zones around the president, his cabinet and other top federal officials," according to a report by the local Fox affiliate. Similarly, the Brady Campaign told CBS News that guns have no place at such an event.
It's Official: Congratulations to the Calguns Foundation for being awarded non-profit status by the IRS. Gene Hoffman, chairman of the Calguns Foundation, told me on Monday evening that the group is now officially a 501(c)(3) non-profit; previously, the non-profit status had been pending.
Montana Update: You may remember that a Montana state law seeks to challenge the federal government on the manufacture and sale of guns made entirely within the state. It takes effect on October 1. As soon that happens, according to Montana Shooting Sports Association president Gary Marbut, gun-rights types will have a lawsuit ready to file to prevent federal prosecution of local would-be gunsmiths.
"We have some strong arguments to make, including some that have never been argued before about the (U.S. Constitution's) Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment, as far as I know," Marbut told me on Monday.
Paging The Ninth Circuit: I just noticed yet another case in which a judge has declined to extend the Second Amendment to state or local laws. The case is called Slough v. Telb and arose out of a gun seizure in Ohio.
U.S. District Judge David Katz ruled on August 14: "The United States Supreme Court has never held that the Second Amendment is enforceable against the states by incorporation into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Courts in other circuits have held that Second Amendment rights are not enforceable against the states under (civil rights laws). As the weight of authority holds that the individual right to bear arms may not be enforceable against the states, the constitutional right to do so is anything but clearly established."
Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBSNews.com. He can be reached at declan@cbsnews.com. You can bookmark the Taking Liberties site here, or subscribe to the RSS feed.
Popular in Politics
- For GOP, scandals could be an electoral plus - or minus 314 Comments
- IRS targeting overlooked biggest soft money groups
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 331 Comments
- Republicans use IRS scandal to tar Obamacare
- Romney condemns "breach of trust" in Washington 80 Comments
- Where is the Benghazi cover-up Republicans promised? 405 Comments
- Ousted IRS chief: "I did not mislead" the American people 261 Comments
- Why Obama should worry that current scandals might impact 2016 241 Comments
It would seem that the various courts that have held that the Second Amendment recently have not read the Second Amendment itself. Nor have they read any of the history of the United States. Nor have they read any of The Federalist Papers, nor any of Thomas Jefferson's, George Mason's, Patrick Henry's, Alexander Hamilton's, James Madison's, or any others of the founding fathers comments on the right to keep and bear arms. Nor have they read the judicial history of the Cruikshank and Presser U.S. Supreme Court cases in the 19th century. In the Cruikshank case, the Supreme Court said that the 2nd amendment did not apply to the case of the Ku Klux Klan denying the rights of Negro citizens to own firearms in one of the Southern states. because the Bill of Rights were only intended as bars to the actions of the Federal government. in the Presser case, brought against the city of chicago, the city had denied a permit for a group of mostly black former soldiers to march under arms in a paraded honoring veterans. again the Court said the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions of the states or local governments. these two cases were and are clearly racist in intention and effect.
the language of the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear to most people, especially the last part: "the Right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." What does the word infringed mean to most people? Webster's defines it as "touched upon" or "interfered with". Clearly the authors of the second amendment intended this amendment, at least, to apply to actions by any group of individuals, and any level of government--lccal, state, or federal.
The Fourteenth Amendments "equal protection" clause should not even be needed. The Constitution itself states that it is the "Supreme Law of the Land." No law passed by any municipality, county, or state government was to be any more restrictive of individual's rights than any law passed by the federal government subject to the Consitution. all local, state and federal officials are required to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
This is a really important case, too bad we have to fight the state legislature this way.
RF at Ride Fast & Shoot Straight
Am I missing something here??