Unanimous 7th Circuit says 2nd Amendment not Incorporated

[midtennchip]

This one is going to be hard to swallow, but the generally conservative 7th Circuit has ruled that the 2A is not incorporated by the 14th Amendment. Therefore, the NRA lawsuit against the cities of Chicago and Oak Park regarding their handgun bans has been dismissed.

While there are many arguments on both sides of this, the 7th Circuit's ruling is based on the Federalism argument (i.e., the conservative view). That is a big blow to us pro-gun folks.

Here's a link to the news:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/06/federalism-is-older-and-more-deeply.html

More commentary here:

http://volokh.com/posts/124396229.shtml

Edited June 2, 2009 by midtennchip

[midtennchip]

Some in-depth commentary from an excellent law professor:

http://volokh.com/posts/1243963229.shtml

I have not yet read the opinion, so just google 7th Circuit and Heller for more info.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

Which puts the 7th and 9th circuits in conflict from the 9th circuit's ruling a few weeks back.....We would expect the 9th to say no and the 7th to say yes, but it is the other way around..how odd.

[DavidCBaker]

Hey, thanks for posting that! I'm going to read both references, start to finish. I really want to understand this.

[victorcharlie]

Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court (Update3) - Bloomberg.com I don't know what to say about this.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Hannibal is at the gates.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

So, wait. Let me get this right....

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Is not applicable to state law? And thus the 2A and potentially the 1A only apply to federal law?

Since when did I live the United States of Opposite?

Under this line of thinking, I could be arrested in Chicago for speaking out against Obama should they decide to pass such a law. Seriously?

[Falcon1]

Under this line of thinking, I could be arrested in Chicago for speaking out against Obama should they decide to pass such a law. Seriously?

No, because the First Amendment has been incorporated against the states.

Welcome to the wonderful world of "selective incorporation," where American citizens do NOT have the rights a plain reading of the Fourteenth Amendment says they have (at least to me--it defines citizenship, for goodness' sake), but only those SCOTUS says they have.

Many people far more sophisticated than I am say that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly doesn't say that. Of course, you know from whence the term "sophisticated" comes?

The growing demand for education in 5th century BCE. Greece called into existence a class of teachers known as sophists. They were a professional class rather than a school, and as such they were scattered over Greece and exhibited professional rivalries. The educational demand was partly for genuine knowledge, but mostly reflected a desire for spurious learning that would lead to political success [emphasis added]. They wandered about Greece from place to place, gave lectures, took pupils, and entered into disputations. For these services they exacted large fees, and were, in fact, the first in Greece to take fees for teaching wisdom. Though not disgraceful in itself, the wise men of Greece had never accepted payment for their teaching. The sophists were not, technically speaking, philosophers, but, instead taught any subject for which there was a popular demand. Topics included rhetoric, politics, grammar, etymology, history, physics, and mathematics. Early on they were seen as teachers of virtue in the sense that they taught people to perform their function in the state [this sounds a little bit like Plato's perfect little Nazi party from The Republic to me].

Source: Sophists [internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

[Guest packing45heat]

I must be a complete idiot.

Our "country" is called the United "States" of America. If you look at the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, it becomes pretty clear that the individual states make up the US. Without this, we have no "federal government".

To say that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government and not the states is to say that it applies to something that never existed in the first place which would be nonsense. We might as well call the founders of our great Nation morons!

I think we (our leaders, ourselves) think too much. Why not just go with what is plain as day and stop trying to find a way to take away civil liberties that have been the foundation of America and continue to make us great and the envy of the world.

[Mike]

I think we (our leaders, ourselves) think too much. Why not just go with what is plain as day and stop trying to find a way to take away civil liberties that have been the foundation of America and continue to make us great and the envy of the world.

Control my friend.

Control.

[DavidCBaker]

I must be a complete idiot.

Our "country" is called the United "States" of America. If you look at the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, it becomes pretty clear that the individual states make up the US. Without this, we have no "federal government".

To say that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government and not the states is to say that it applies to something that never existed in the first place which would be nonsense. We might as well call the founders of our great Nation morons!

I think we (our leaders, ourselves) think too much. Why not just go with what is plain as day and stop trying to find a way to take away civil liberties that have been the foundation of America and continue to make us great and the envy of the world.

Did you read the material the OP linked to?

[Guest packing45heat]

Oh, I get. I just want the gun grabbers and anti liberty goons to admit that is what they are after and stop claiming that they have the best interest of the "people" in mind.

Our political leaders have become such a joke!

[Guest packing45heat]

I did read the first link. The second seems to be broken. It still seems more like judges seeing what they want to see.

[AH1356]

This is on a fast track to the Supreme Court. There some smart lawyer on our side will ask something like "If the states can override a citizen's rights under the 2nd amendment, by what logic are they restrained from overriding his rights under the 1st, 4th, 5th, or any other?"

Legally, this should be a slam dunk. Unless of course Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, or Kennedy get hit by a bus between now and then...

[Guest mn32768]

I read the commentary on this, and the consensus seems to be that the conservative judges in the case issued the ruling on purpose. This was in order to fast track a definite case on 2nd Amendment and private gun ownership to the Supreme Court.

The ultimate goal is to affirm that Heller applies to all states, not just DC. It's all good

[Mike.357]

I dunno how on topic this post will be but here it goes.

As it is, goverment is not here anymore to serve the citizens. What is right or wrong is immaterial. A simple guide to life is to look at something and decide, is this right, or is this wrong. Right or wrong in regards to the laws of nature, The golden rule, the ten commandments, call it what you will. Right or wrong should be what all decisions are based on.

Goverment could care less about right or wrong. All goverment consists of is politicians. People if you will. These people are power hungry and crazy. Crazy with what power may bring. Crazy over holding others down. Crazy with feeling like bigshots. Bighsots because they want to rule. Power equals rule.

They want to screw the rest of us over. It does not matter if something is right or wrong. Stick it to the people, make them kneel before the goverment seat. That is the goal. Doesn't matter if it is guns, taxes, health care, oil, you name it they want to keep their foot on our neck.

[G27]

I read the commentary on this, and the consensus seems to be that the conservative judges in the case issued the ruling on purpose. This was in order to fast track a definite case on 2nd Amendment and private gun ownership to the Supreme Court.

The ultimate goal is to affirm that Heller applies to all states, not just DC. It's all good

Interesting concept - I'd like to read more, link?

I hope this is true!

[Guest SUNTZU]

Mike, while I agree with your post, I think the scariest part is that the people in power don't view it as keeping their feet on our necks, they feel that they are doing the right thing. Many of these people are trying to create a Utopia for imperfect men. This is the bane of self-reliant, independent people. You have to conform to the standard that is being put forth by liberal legislation. The duty of each person must be to the government first; they must be reliant on the government and work for the government in the manner proscribed by the government. All are equal under the law, their law, their equality.

C.S. Lewis wrote the following: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than udner omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

[leroy]

I read the commentary on this, and the consensus seems to be that the conservative judges in the case issued the ruling on purpose. This was in order to fast track a definite case on 2nd Amendment and private gun ownership to the Supreme Court.

The ultimate goal is to affirm that Heller applies to all states, not just DC. It's all good

I second this view. I think mn is exactly right.

LEROY

[DaveTN]

"If the states can override a citizen's rights under the 2nd amendment, by what logic are they restrained from overriding his rights under the 1st, 4th, 5th, or any other?"

States Rights. We fought a war over it remember.

I have said all along and prior to the Heller case that the SCOTUS is not going to do anything with a 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment case that will allow you to go armed; it just is not going to happen.

Why? Because states like Illinois, California, and New York are not going to be told that they must allow their citizens to go armed. They will refuse no matter what the SCOTUS says.

[Guest mustangdave]

States Rights. We fought a war over it remember.

I have said all along and prior to the Heller case that the SCOTUS is not going to do anything with a 2^nd amendment case that will allow you to go armed; it just is not going to happen.

Why? Because states like Illinois, California, and New York are not going to be told that they must allow their citizens to go armed. They will refuse no matter what the SCOTUS says.

Well...try this on for size....2nd Ammendment not withstanding...we here in Tennessee "pay" the state for the "priviledge" to go "armed"...you can otherwise OWN a fire arm...but you can not "carry" concealed or open without the states permission (HCP)

[Guest mustangdave]

the state can restrict and regulate...how we exercise our 2nd Ammendment RIGHT