04-21-2009, 11:54 AM
This is about the new opinion the 9th Circuit Court issued!
This is a post from 24 by Pmh, but since some can't view it (like banned asshole OP), I wanted to post it here. It's extremely refreshing and surprising coming out of the notoriously left California system.
---------------------------------------
For those that don't have the time or inclination to read the whole opinion the following are some of the important findings mentioned in yesterday's 9th Circuit Court opinion regarding the 2nd amendment.
Many of the statements are things we already understood and believed but it is astounding to here them from a court that is considered ruling from the far left.
"The Second Amendment protects a right that predates the Constitution; therefore, the Constitution did not grant it."
"This necessary "right of the people" existed before the Second Amendment as "one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen."
"The County does little to refute this powerful evidence that the right to bear arms is deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the Republic, a right Americans considered fundamental at the Founding and thereafter. The County instead argues that the states, in the exercise of their police power, are the instrumentalities of the right of self-defense at the heart of the Second Amendment. This argument merely rephrases the collective rights argument the Supreme Court rejected in Heller. Indeed, one need only consider other constitutional rights to see the poverty of this contention."
"We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this Nation⿿s history and tradition." Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the "true palladium of liberty." Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments."
"That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in an attack on any community before more professional forces arrived.1 Second, the right to bear arms is a protection against the possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with individual diligence. Third, while the Second Amendment thus stands as a protection against both external threat and internal tyranny, the recognition of the individual⿿s right in the Second Amendment, and its incorporation by the Due Process Clause against the states, is not inconsistent with the reasonable regulation of weaponry."
"Also, important governmental interests will justify reasonable regulation of rifles and handguns, and the problem for our courts will be to define, in the context of particular regulation by the states and municipalities, what is reasonable and permissible and what is unreasonable and offensive to the Second Amendment."
This is a post from 24 by Pmh, but since some can't view it (like banned asshole OP), I wanted to post it here. It's extremely refreshing and surprising coming out of the notoriously left California system.
---------------------------------------
For those that don't have the time or inclination to read the whole opinion the following are some of the important findings mentioned in yesterday's 9th Circuit Court opinion regarding the 2nd amendment.
Many of the statements are things we already understood and believed but it is astounding to here them from a court that is considered ruling from the far left.
"The Second Amendment protects a right that predates the Constitution; therefore, the Constitution did not grant it."
"This necessary "right of the people" existed before the Second Amendment as "one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen."
"The County does little to refute this powerful evidence that the right to bear arms is deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the Republic, a right Americans considered fundamental at the Founding and thereafter. The County instead argues that the states, in the exercise of their police power, are the instrumentalities of the right of self-defense at the heart of the Second Amendment. This argument merely rephrases the collective rights argument the Supreme Court rejected in Heller. Indeed, one need only consider other constitutional rights to see the poverty of this contention."
"We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this Nation⿿s history and tradition." Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the "true palladium of liberty." Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments."
"That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in an attack on any community before more professional forces arrived.1 Second, the right to bear arms is a protection against the possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with individual diligence. Third, while the Second Amendment thus stands as a protection against both external threat and internal tyranny, the recognition of the individual⿿s right in the Second Amendment, and its incorporation by the Due Process Clause against the states, is not inconsistent with the reasonable regulation of weaponry."
"Also, important governmental interests will justify reasonable regulation of rifles and handguns, and the problem for our courts will be to define, in the context of particular regulation by the states and municipalities, what is reasonable and permissible and what is unreasonable and offensive to the Second Amendment."
