NRA Appeals Seventh Circuit Ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court

[Frank Ettin]

...I have no idea why the 2nd Amendment would be treated differently from the other rights in the Bill of Rights.

It isn't.

In 1833 in the case of Baron v. Balitmore, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. It applied only to the federal government. However, in the late 19th century, well after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court began to apply the Bill of Rights in a piecemeal fashion to the states through the 14th Amendment. This process is known as "incorporation" -- selected rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights have been "incorporated" into the 14th Amendment and thus applied to the states.

Some provisions of the 1st Amendment were not applied to the states until the 1930s and 1940s. Many procedural protections available to criminal defendants in federal court under the Bill of Rights were not available to defendants in state courts until the 1960s. Some enumerated rights, like the 5th Amendment right to indictment by grand jury, and the 7th Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases, have not been found applicable to the states.

So far the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated (except in the 9th Circuit). One of the difficulties in getting the 2nd Amendment incorporated is that in an 1873 case, United States v. Chruikshank, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to states; and Chruikshank came after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. The 9th Circuit in recently finding incorporation distinguished Chruikshank, i. e, concluded that the facts and bases for the decision in Chruikshank (it relied on one portion of the 14th Amendment) weren't applicable in the Nordyke case before it; and incorporation was thus found based on other provision of the 14th Amendment.

 

[daorhgih]

I'm keeping my membership, but . . . . . . .

. . . . the NRA is seen by the Progressives as not much more than a toothless old prostitute with too many pimps and johns to hie to. Our latest rebuff by congress just goes to prove this. But there is hope, if ALL of us as members, individually, will write to our congressmen, stating our explicit views on RKBA and 2A, and then publish their letters here, we may get the job done that the "Queen Mary could not navigate. Progressives have just given the NRA a Texas Heart-shot. It's up to US to get their attention now. Will you?? ENOUGH !! !! Are you going to wait for the Civilian National Security Forces to come ask whether you have a gun?? That's the plan. ACT IN 2010 OR LOSE THE CHANCE EVER AGAIN. Just my $0.02.

 

[mljdeckard]

If it weren't for the NRA your RKBA would have vanished decades ago.

This is as good as it gets. It has to get heard sooner or later, and we won't likely have a better court to hear it in the forseeable future. I think they should do it as fast and as strongly as possible.

 

[daorhgih]

2d try. I'm keeping my membership, but . . . .

This following new release should let you in on how the Progressives view the NRA, and by extension, all of the nameless and faceless supporters of the NRA. By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 50 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The National Rifle Association's threat to punish senators who vote for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has been met with a shrug by Democrats from conservative-leaning states and some Republicans who are breaking with their party to support her.
The gun rights group is used to getting its way by spooking lawmakers about the political consequences of defying its wishes. But it never before has weighed in on a Supreme Court confirmation battle. It was cautious about breaking that pattern, and it looks like a losing a fight to defeat President Barack Obama's first pick for the court.
Sotomayor is expected to easily win confirmation in a vote this coming week that could deflate the long-accepted truism in Washington that you don't cross the NRA.
Voting "yes" will include A-plus-rated and NRA-endorsed Democratic Sen. Max Baucus and his fellow Montanan, A-rated Sen. Jon Tester, as well as A-rated and NRA-endorsed Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, the only GOP leader to break with the rest of this party to back Sotomayor.
That's not to say that the NRA's late decision to wade in hasn't had an impact.
Many Republicans who were considered possible "yes" votes for Sotomayor — including Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, Georgia Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, and Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison — have come out against her after the NRA's announcement, citing gun rights concerns as an important reason. Some Democrats who have high NRA ratings, including Alaska Sen. Mark Begich and Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, are on the fence.
Still, the NRA's threats seem to hold less potency on this vote. Asked whether he was worried about ruining his perfect NRA score and endorsement by opting to vote for Sotomayor, Nelson paused and said with a smile, "I'd probably have a good rating regardless." ///not of he hears from his constitueny, he won''t \\\ "The NRA derives much of its considerable clout from what has become a kind of mantra on Capitol Hill: Defy the gun lobby on something it cares about and face recriminations at the polls; back it and enjoy a substantial political boost. /// Screw the mantra! Send a letter and post the reply here. And buy more guns and ammo///

 

[lanternlad1]

Cert will be granted. The Ninth court already said that the Second applies to the states. Since the Seventh said it didn't, it's up SCOTUS to figure out who's right.

 

[mljdeckard]

Yes, the NRA is so insignificant to the current administration that they are falling all over themselves to pass anti-gun legislation. WAIT. NO THEY'RE NOT.

Oh, and the 9th has decided to rescind their decision to let it be heard en banc.

 

[frontgate1]

Civilian National Security Forces?? Huh?
This is a figment of your imagination or does it really exist in your head?

Here's something to extend your paranoia. Obama is putting together an all negro security force to come to YOUR house and take YOUR guns!!!

Scary huh?

 

[mljdeckard]

I don't know why you would mock someone for imagining something Obama actually stated.

 

[Birdmang]

explain please?

 

[ManBearPig]

Well, that it's it. This is the exact same case as Heller, so there's no way the SCOTUS is not going to accept it. Which means we will get another 5-4 decision in our favor, only this time the 2nd Amendment will be incorporated. Incorporation will be such a crushing defeat for the gun-grabbers, that they may never recover from it. Game over.

 

[mljdeckard]

And while I understand that in this system, anything can happen, I honestly believe this is the most likely outcome. Like I say, we won't get a better setup than this. Now is the time.

 

[lanternlad1]

The Ninth is trying to en banc the Nordyke decision, presumably to de-rail their "faux-pas" in unintentionally incorporating the Second to the States. To little, too late, I think. Chicago is going to regret fighting this one all the way. If other Amendments (First, Fourth, Fifth) are applied to States, then it stands to reason that the Second would be too. You can't pick and choose which laws are valid and which aren't.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Thread Drift

explain please?

He's referring to the July 2, 2008 speech, which contained this remark:

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

We now return you to the actual topic. Let us stay with the matter at hand. The campaign speech is politics, which disqualifies it for discussion here.

Further posts on this non-topic will be deleted.

 

[daorhgih]

Dear Arfin:

" The campaign speech is politics"......I'm old enough to remember Hitler's speeches (as translated by BBC, shortwave). Oh, yeah, now I remember also that they were "just politics." But some of us studied Mein Kampf in High School. When the snake rattles, it's ready to strike. Our 2A right is under attack, whether the thread is closed or isn't, or whether the front gate is open or closed. We cannot let the monolithic NRA, or (fill in blank here____ ) do it for us. We must hang together, or we will all........no, wait, I'm beginning to quote someone. Thanks mljd... for, "I don't know why you would mock someone for imagining something Obama actually stated." Frontgate1 just needs to get out with the Believers a bit more. What Obama says, Obama does......and THIS is very pertinent to any post on this site. Yes, the C.N.S.F. will be coming for our guns.
(( Dear Arfin, please delete this rather than closing everyone else out. Thanks ))