Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: Ninth Circuit: Right to Bear Arms Includes Right to Acquire Arms
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/california ... s-includes-right-acquire-arms/
Published: May 16, 2016
Author: Awr Hawkins
Post Date: 2016-05-16 22:55:10 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 52427
Comments: 164
Teixeira revolves around Alameda County zoning rules for incorporated areas that not only require a gun store owner to obtain requisite local, state, and federal permits for the business, but also make sure “the proposed location of the business is not within five hundred feet of a ‘[r]esidentially zoned district; elementary, middle or high school; pre-school or day care center; other firearms sales business; or liquor stores or establishments in which liquor is served.'” Teixeira revolves around Alameda County zoning rules for incorporated areas that not only require a gun store owner to obtain requisite local, state, and federal permits for the business, but also make sure “the proposed location of the business is not within five hundred feet of a ‘[r]esidentially zoned district; elementary, middle or high school; pre-school or day care center; other firearms sales business; or liquor stores or establishments in which liquor is served.'” After being denied the requisite county permits to open “Valley Guns and Ammo” — due to complaints of persons within 500 feet of the proposed business — Plaintiff John Teixeira contended that the “500-foot rule” was tantamount to a backdoor ban on gun stores. And while there was some question over the exact distance between the proposed store and some of those who complained, the issue for Teixeira turned on the right of due process and other rights protected by the Second Amendment. Teixeira challenged Alameda County’s decision in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and lost. He then appealed the case to the 9th Circuit Court, where the ruling has remanded the case to the lower court. In summarizing the latest ruling, the court pointed to the Ninth Circuit’s position that Alameda County “had offered nothing to undermine the panel’s conclusion that the right to purchase and to sell firearms is part and parcel of the historically recognized right to keep and to bear arms.” Writing in the Majority Opinion, 9th Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain emphasized, “Our forefathers recognized that the prohibition of commerce in firearms worked to undermine the right to keep and to bear arms.” O’Scannlain also pointed to the recognition of the importance of buying and selling firearms from the time of the English Bill of Rights (1689) to founding of the United States. Regarding the era in which the United States was founded, O’Scannlain explained that the states which ratified that Second Amendment did so believing they were not simply protecting a right to keep and bear arms but to buy and sell them as well. He wrote: The historical record indicates that Americans continued to believe that such right included the freedom to purchase and to sell weapons. In 1793, Thomas Jefferson noted that “[o]ur citizens have always been free to make, vend, and export arms. It is the constant occupation and livelihood of some of them.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Monday that the right to bear arms has historically included the right to acquire them, and remanded the case of Teixeira v. County of Alameda to the lower court.
(1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 33.
#3. To: cranky (#0)
So much for original intent.
How so? Do you disagree with what Judge O’Scannlain said, below? Or do you think it doesn't apply if the prohibition of commerce in firearms is disguised as a zoning rule? 'Writing in the Majority Opinion, 9th Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain emphasized, “Our forefathers recognized that the prohibition of commerce in firearms worked to undermine the right to keep and to bear arms.” 'O’Scannlain also pointed to the recognition of the importance of buying and selling firearms from the time of the English Bill of Rights (1689) to founding of the United States. 'Regarding the era in which the United States was founded, O’Scannlain explained that the states which ratified that Second Amendment did so believing they were not simply protecting a right to keep and bear arms but to buy and sell them as well. He wrote: '"The historical record indicates that Americans continued to believe that such right included the freedom to purchase and to sell weapons. In 1793, Thomas Jefferson noted that “[o]ur citizens have always been free to make, vend, and export arms. It is the constant occupation and livelihood of some of them.”'
Your ignorance is appalling.
Your evasions are appalling.
Quote one Framer contending that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to control county zoning laws, ignoramus.
The 14th Amendment did not exist in the times of the Framers. In their time the entire BoR only applied to the Federal Government. See MacDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), Syllabus at 2: See MacDonald, Syllabus at 3: County zoning laws which unduly infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights are unconstitutional.
Really? The clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" originally referred only to Federal officials, employees, appointees, etc?
Cranky --- Really? Nolu Chan responds, repeating himself, with yet another opinion: --- This type of opinion is currently being used in California to infringe on our right to bear arms. Why Nolu continues to support these State infringements, based on anti-gun opinions, is beyond rationality. Does he really believe that our republican form of government is best served by further prohibitions on individual freedoms?
Does he really believe that our republican form of government is best served by further prohibitions on individual freedoms? Hey, it's like a scene from Remember the Titans. tpaine, you must be Dean Martin and cranky, you must be Jerry. I'm your daddy. Now, both of y'all, just get on the bus. See tpaine shill for his favorite Libertarian constitutional scholar: http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=45874 Title: Our Republican Constitution http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46251 Title: Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People Not only did Randy Barnett publish the 296-page book for the general public above, but he previously published a real, full-blasted 1,348-page legal casebook which i just happen to own, and from which I quoted at my #29. Yes, I used tpaine's own preferred constitutional expert (among others) to certify that tpaine is full of shit and has no clue what he is talking about. It is an historical fact that when the Bill of Rights was passed in 1791 as part of the organic law defining the powers of the Federal government, the amendments did not restrict the powers then held by the state governments. Constitutional Law, Cases in Context, Randy E. Barnett, Aspen Publishers, 2008, page 148:
#34. To: nolu chan, puts foot in mouth, again, Y'ALL (#33)
What really puzzles me is why any rational person would WANT to give States the power to ignore our individual rights. Why Nolu continues to support these State infringements, based on anti-gun opinions, is beyond rationality. Does he really believe that our republican form of government is best served by further prohibitions on individual freedoms? In reply, (actually, - putting foot in mouth) nolu posts: --- Title: Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People Source: [None] URL Source: [None] Published: May 15, 2016 Author: Randy E. Barnett Anyone can read Barnetts book, which establishes the FACT that there has always been argument about whether the States were bound by amendments to the constitution. -- Natually, the slave States disagreed. -- Nolu still does... So nolu claims, unsupported by the clear words of our Constitution, which specifies the opposite in several places, which I have previously pointed out. The following, by Barnett, supports my argument: -- Constitutional Law, Cases in Context, Randy E. Barnett, Aspen Publishers, 2008, page 148: "Today, most people take for granted that state governments must respect the rights contained in the Bill of Rights, but this is a relatively modern development that took place only after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Barron v. Baltimore, Chief Justice Marshall describes what came to be the settled view of how and why the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states." Operative words: -- "what came to be". --- GRANTED, - the SCOTUS and the slave States (and later the southern democrats) have INSISTED that this is the 'settled view'. It is not... And has been in contention ever since.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestTeixeira revolves around Alameda County zoning rules
#6. To: Roscoe (#3)
So much for original intent.
#12. To: ConservingFreedom (#6)
How so?
#14. To: Roscoe (#12)
#15. To: ConservingFreedom (#14)
#19. To: Roscoe, ConservingFreedom (#15)
Quote one Framer contending that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to control county zoning laws, ignoramus.
(b) The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, originally applied only to the Federal Government, not to the States, see, e.g., Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 247, but the constitutional Amendments adopted in the Civil War’s aftermathfundamentally altered the federal system.
(d) The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States. Pp. 19–33.
#28. To: nolu chan (#19)
In their time the entire BoR only applied to the Federal Government.
#30. To: cranky, Y'ALL, Nolu Chan, (#28)
nolu chan --- In their time the entire BoR only applied to the Federal Government.
The Second Amendment refers to a preesisting right of the people. It did not create any right for anybody. As with the entire Bill of Rights, it did not apply to the States. It was a restriction of authority of the Federal government, only.
#33. To: tpaine, cranky (#30)
Why Nolu continues to support these State infringements, based on anti-gun opinions, is beyond rationality.
U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Source: Amazon
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 21, 2016
Author: Randy Barnett
Post Date: 2016-04-21 18:54:18 by tpaine U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: May 15, 2016
Author: Randy E. Barnett
Post Date: 2016-05-15 00:25:26 by tpaineToday, most people take for granted that state governments must respect the rights contained in the Bill of Rights, but this is a relatively modern development that took place only after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Barron v. Baltimore, Chief Justice Marshall describes what came to be the settled view of how and why the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. Reading Barron in its entirety is essential to grasping the objectives of the Repubicans in the Thirty-ninth Congress who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, portions of which were meant to reverse Barron. Barron is to the Fourteenth Amendment what Chisholm v. Georgia is to the Eleventh. The reasoning of Barron is also crucial to appreciating both the need for, and the controversy surrounding, the so-called incorporation doctrine, developed in the twentieth century, by which selected portions of the Bill of Rights were "incorporated" into the Fourteenth Amendment and applied to the states.
Replies to Comment # 33. Not only did Randy Barnett publish the 296-page book for the general public above, but he previously published a real, full- blasted 1,348-page legal casebook which i just happen to own, and from which I quoted at my #29. Yes, I used tpaine's own preferred constitutional expert (among others) to certify that tpaine is full of shit and has no clue what he is talking about.
[this is not in Barnetts book] It is an historical fact that when the Bill of Rights was passed in 1791 as part of the organic law defining the powers of the Federal government, the amendments did not restrict the powers then held by the state governments.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 33.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]