CA CCW Lawsuit
...and this is what I’ve got to say about that!
With the Ninth Circuit decision almost three weeks ago, affirming the Second Amendment over state and local laws, we may not need this. The decision, whose name escapes me at the moment, went against the plaintiff, but affirmed this right--but only in Washington state, Oregon, and California.
Posted by BlueStateSaint
05/08/2009 at 04:25 PM
Yes, the 9th’s decision was in Nordyke v. Alamenda, was the first high court decision that said that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated against the states.
While “incorporation” may seem like a bit of legal-beagle BS to most of us, it’s the kind of thing that lawyers thrive on. The 14th amendment says that your basic rights as an individual, those recognized by the federal government (ie Bill of Rights) are also impervious to state control. Well, no kidding. But it’s been a very long time coming for the 2nd to be recognized this way. Under the concept of incorporation it seems that every aspect of each of those enumerated rights has to be “proven” or accepted by some high court decision.
I say the whole thing is a crock. As in “what part of ‘shall not be infringed’” don’t you idiots understand? The Constitution trumps all federal law. Period. Federal law trumps state law. Period. State law trumps local law. Period. Restating the obvious: Since A>B and B>C and C>D, therefore A>D: the Constitution trumps local law. Big Period. But even though the US had a war over this concept, 150 years later people still don’t get it, and keep trying to pass local laws that deny constitutional rights. Duh.
Anyway, it’s grand that the 9th said this, but it’s also a little spooky, given the 9th’s history of getting things wrong.
Someday, the Slaughterhouses decision will be overturned, and Gitlow will be set aside as the weak-bellied nonsense that it truly is. Until then, we have to deal with incorporation. Good news: there isn’t much left to incorporate.
This is, of course, why any language other than ’Shall Issue’ must not be accepted.
Force the local powers to give reasons and explain in detail eaxactly why you are not allowed the means of self-defense, while their friends are.
