• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ninth Circuit panel issues stunning Second Amendment ruling

MickeyW

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
14,012
Reaction score
3,439
Location
Southern Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel today ruled that “the right to purchase and sell firearms is part and parcel of the historically recognized right to keep and bear arms,” an opinion almost certain to make gun prohibitionists shudder.

The 2-1 opinion came in a case filed by the Second Amendment Foundation, the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, the Calguns Foundation, Inc., and three businessmen, John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga and Gary Gamaza. It is known as Teixeira v. Alameda County, and it was supported by an amicus brief filed by Virginia attorney Alan Gura for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The ruling may be read here.

Judge O’Scannlain reiterated, “The right of law-abiding citizens to keep and to bear arms is not a ‘second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause.’”

Ninth Circuit panel issues stunning Second Amendment ruling | Examiner.com


:thumbs::thumbs:
 

MickeyW

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
14,012
Reaction score
3,439
Location
Southern Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is why I fully support the SAF because they will fight for the rights of gun owners, more than anyone else.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,190
Reaction score
21,327
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Well, the gun control side can file a motion to have the issue heard en banc, asking the entire membership of the 9th Circuit to review the decision.

The 9th Circuit has usually been fairly left-liberal in rulings and they may agree to this and overrule the decision of the panel.

It would be awesome if they upheld it en banc, but just as acceptable if they refuse to hear it, so that in either case even if there is an appeal to the current SCOTUS a 4:4 decision would make it good law nationwide.
 

Bootlace

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2014
Messages
597
Reaction score
299
Location
So cal
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This is why I fully support the SAF because they will fight for the rights of gun owners, more than anyone else.

I donate generously to SAF, calguns, as well as the NRA. Good news, thanks for the post.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
55,855
Reaction score
43,044
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel today ruled that “the right to purchase and sell firearms is part and parcel of the historically recognized right to keep and bear arms,” an opinion almost certain to make gun prohibitionists shudder.

The 2-1 opinion came in a case filed by the Second Amendment Foundation, the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, the Calguns Foundation, Inc., and three businessmen, John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga and Gary Gamaza. It is known as Teixeira v. Alameda County, and it was supported by an amicus brief filed by Virginia attorney Alan Gura for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The ruling may be read here.

Judge O’Scannlain reiterated, “The right of law-abiding citizens to keep and to bear arms is not a ‘second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause.’”

Ninth Circuit panel issues stunning Second Amendment ruling | Examiner.com


:thumbs::thumbs:
Wow - that was in 'Frisco!

That court is as liberal as it gets!
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,803
Reaction score
79,572
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
This is why I fully support the SAF because they will fight for the rights of gun owners, more than anyone else.


me too. great organization

IMG_0122.jpg
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
39,838
Reaction score
46,408
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Wow - that was in 'Frisco!

That court is as liberal as it gets!

The 9th Circuit hasn't been too bad in guns recently. The same court stopped "may issue" in San Diego a year or two ago.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
55,855
Reaction score
43,044
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The 9th Circuit hasn't been too bad in guns recently. The same court stopped "may issue" in San Diego a year or two ago.
Wasn't aware of that.

So they're socially liberal, but strong 2A - my kind of people! ;)
 

cabse5

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,624
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
me too. great organization

View attachment 67201462
If you guys want to follow the traditionalist view of The Constitution - that the original intent of The Constitution is the only intent of The Constitution - the second amendment concerning arms ownership was passed by the first congress in 1789 as a right for militias to have the right to bear arms. James Madison, the one who first proposed the 2nd amendment concerning arms, wanted gun ownership to be an individual right but that wasn't passed by the first congress.

Sidenote: How does one permit individual ownership of arms but not allow them in schools? At airports?
 
Last edited:

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
39,838
Reaction score
46,408
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Wasn't aware of that.

So they're socially liberal, but strong 2A - my kind of people! ;)

I wouldn't say "strong 2A" but they made the right decision in that case.
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
39,838
Reaction score
46,408
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If you guys want to follow the traditionalist view of The Constitution - that the original intent of The Constitution is the only intent of The Constitution - the second amendment concerning arms ownership was passed by the first congress in 1789 as a right for militias to have the right to bear arms. James Madison, the one who first proposed the 2nd amendment concerning arms, wanted gun ownership to be an individual right but that wasn't passed by the first congress.

Sidenote: How does one permit individual ownership of arms but not allow them in schools? At airports?

The 2A is VERY clear about the right of the people[\u] to keep and bear arms.

WRT carrying on school campuses and aircraft, that's a good question and there is plenty of room to argue that such restrictions should be prohibited.
 

cabse5

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,624
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The 2A is VERY clear about the right of the people[\u] to keep and bear arms.

WRT carrying on school campuses and aircraft, that's a good question and there is plenty of room to argue that such restrictions should be prohibited.
The interpretation of the arms portion of the second amendment by the judiciary is definitely clear. Again, this interpretation by the judiciary was not the original intent of the arms portion of the second amendment as it was originally passed by congress in 1789.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,803
Reaction score
79,572
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
If you guys want to follow the traditionalist view of The Constitution - that the original intent of The Constitution is the only intent of The Constitution - the second amendment concerning arms ownership was passed by the first congress in 1789 as a right for militias to have the right to bear arms. James Madison, the one who first proposed the 2nd amendment concerning arms, wanted gun ownership to be an individual right but that wasn't passed by the first congress.

Sidenote: How does one permit individual ownership of arms but not allow them in schools? At airports?

you are wrong. What was the pre-existing natural right that the founders intended to recognize with the second amendment?
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
A U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel today ruled that “the right to purchase and sell firearms is part and parcel of the historically recognized right to keep and bear arms,” an opinion almost certain to make gun prohibitionists shudder.

The 2-1 opinion came in a case filed by the Second Amendment Foundation, the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, the Calguns Foundation, Inc., and three businessmen, John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga and Gary Gamaza. It is known as Teixeira v. Alameda County, and it was supported by an amicus brief filed by Virginia attorney Alan Gura for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The ruling may be read here.

Judge O’Scannlain reiterated, “The right of law-abiding citizens to keep and to bear arms is not a ‘second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause.’”

Ninth Circuit panel issues stunning Second Amendment ruling | Examiner.com


:thumbs::thumbs:

Localities should be allowed to set their own gun policies without federal interference.

Well, the gun control side can file a motion to have the issue heard en banc, asking the entire membership of the 9th Circuit to review the decision.

The 9th Circuit has usually been fairly left-liberal in rulings and they may agree to this and overrule the decision of the panel.

It would be awesome if they upheld it en banc, but just as acceptable if they refuse to hear it, so that in either case even if there is an appeal to the current SCOTUS a 4:4 decision would make it good law nationwide.

You are confused. Unappealed circuit court rulings are binding over the district courts of that circuit, but are only persuasive in the rest of the country.
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
you are wrong. What was the pre-existing natural right that the founders intended to recognize with the second amendment?

The founders didn't intend for the 2nd to apply to the states.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,803
Reaction score
79,572
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

cabse5

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,624
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
If you guys want to follow the traditionalist view of The Constitution - that the original intent of The Constitution is the only intent of The Constitution - the second amendment concerning arms ownership was passed by the first congress in 1789 as a right for militias to have the right to bear arms. James Madison, the one who first proposed the 2nd amendment concerning arms, wanted gun ownership to be an individual right but that wasn't passed by the first congress.

Sidenote: How does one permit individual ownership of arms but not allow them in schools? At airports?

you are wrong. What was the pre-existing natural right that the founders intended to recognize with the second amendment?
The founder, James Madison, wished for individual gun ownership but the congress passed the arms part of the second amendment in 1789 as a right for militias. Of course, individual arms ownership made up militia arms ownership but still it originally was a militia right. Now that the EDIT: non-US government entities provide all the weaponry needed for the military, individual arms ownership is not a necessity for military/militia ownership.

This is all a moot point because the judiciary has consistently ruled for individual arms ownership (except in schools, airports, etc.).
 
Last edited:

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,803
Reaction score
79,572
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The founder, James Madison, wished for individual gun ownership but the congress passed the arms part of the second amendment in 1789 as a right for militias.


how do militias have rights and how does the pre-existing right the founders sought to recognize, require membership in a government created entity that did not exist prior to the formation of the government?
 

polgara

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
20,215
Reaction score
17,786
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Wow - that was in 'Frisco!

That court is as liberal as it gets!

Good evening, Chomsky. :2wave:

Something that alarms me is why we are having so much current controversy about the first two Rights in the Bill of Rights - freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms. It almost sounds as if some would like to get rid of our Constitution - we aren't told what would replace it - but why change something that has made us unique on the world stage for several hundred years?
 

cabse5

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,624
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
how do militias have rights and how does the pre-existing right the founders sought to recognize, require membership in a government created entity that did not exist prior to the formation of the government?
The people had rights to defend themselves from an intrusive federal government. That particular bill of rights prevention that we refer to, now, was the militia. The federal government couldn't take away a militia's arms as the British had done before.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,803
Reaction score
79,572
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The people had rights to defend themselves from an intrusive federal government. That particular bill of rights prevention that we refer to, now, was the militia. The federal government couldn't take away a militia's arms as the British had done before.

That really is an evasion of the point I made. The right was an individual one, not of an entity that did not pre=exist government (well regulated militia)
 

cabse5

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,624
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
That really is an evasion of the point I made. The right was an individual one, not of an entity that did not pre=exist government (well regulated militia)
No evasion. I'm pointing out that the second amendment when passed by the first congress in 1789, held arms ownership as a right of militias. IOW, the arms part of the 2nd amendment when it became a part of The Constitution in 1789, dealt with militias.

I'm sure there were those with high and possibly worthy goals for this amendment. Like James Madison. When the 2nd amendment was passed by congress in 1789, the arms portion pertained to militias.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,803
Reaction score
79,572
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
No evasion. I'm pointing out that the second amendment when passed by the first congress in 1789, held arms ownership as a right of militias. IOW, the arms part of the 2nd amendment when it became a part of The Constitution in 1789, dealt with militias.

I'm sure there were those with high and possibly worthy goals for this amendment. Like James Madison. When the 2nd amendment was passed by congress in 1789, the arms portion pertained to militias.

You are wrong. The Second Amendment does not say

THE RIGHT OF THE MILITIA (or Militia members) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says the right of the people

since a militia is an ad hoc emergency creation, how can you have the environment to create an effective militia unless all the people had their right to KBA guaranteed?
 

cabse5

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,624
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
You are wrong. The Second Amendment does not say

THE RIGHT OF THE MILITIA (or Militia members) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says the right of the people

since a militia is an ad hoc emergency creation, how can you have the environment to create an effective militia unless all the people had their right to KBA guaranteed?
You need to read the backstory to the first congress. Better yet, read the book "The First Congress", by Fergus M. Bordewich.

The second amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
 
Top Bottom