9th US Circuit rules the Second Amendment should be incorporated into the 14th.

[Mannlicher]

But as I read it, on the State/local level. This involved the case of Nordyke Vs King, and the issue was Alemeda County California passed an ordinance that banned gun shows held on County Property.

"We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear
arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators
and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic
all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been
regarded as the “true palladium of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to
assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought
to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century
later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our
birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed
fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception
of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded
that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates
the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments."

Cited at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf

I believe this is the first case decided by an appellate court that the Due Process Clause includes the 2nd.

Oh, I am NOT an attorney, and neither did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express......... :)

[kenhwind]

This certainly isn't bad news, and as happened before the Circuit Courts decision on the DC gun ban prevailed in the SCOTUS opinion in Heller.

[denton]

This is outstandingly good news.

Heller was a huge victory. But it only addressed the narrowest of issues. It applied only in a person's home, and did not involve the issue of whether the decision was binding on the states.

This decision makes Heller binding on all courts in the 9th District, which includes California.

9th Circuit ruled that the Alameda County law was still OK because that's what they wanted to do and nothing in Heller addresses the issue of whether the right extends beyond the home. That will come later.

The 9th Circuit decision is not binding on the 7th Circuit, where the Chicago case is presently on appeal. But it may be influential. Or, the 7th may split with the 9th, setting up a Supreme Court appeal.

This decision overturns their own Hickman ruling of a few years ago which said that California's at-whim concealed permit system was OK. So that's good news. It also may lead to overturning some of California's sillier laws, but only those that apply to gun ownership in general, not those that apply to where you can carry a firearm.

Today was a victory, no mistake about it. But it was just one of many victories that we must win over the next few decades. The good news is that Heller tilts the field strongly in our favor as these cases work their way through the courts.

[Rich-D]

This is outstandingly good news.

I Agree! And I compliment you on the very well written, on point analysis of the rulings impact!

Rich

[d90king]

This is outstandingly good news.

Heller was a huge victory. But it only addressed the narrowest of issues. It applied only in a person's home, and did not involve the issue of whether the decision was binding on the states.

This decision makes Heller binding on all courts in the 9th District, which includes California.

9th Circuit ruled that the Alameda County law was still OK because that's what they wanted to do and nothing in Heller addresses the issue of whether the right extends beyond the home. That will come later.

The 9th Circuit decision is not binding on the 7th Circuit, where the Chicago case is presently on appeal. But it may be influential. Or, the 7th may split with the 9th, setting up a Supreme Court appeal.

This decision overturns their own Hickman ruling of a few years ago which said that California's at-whim concealed permit system was OK. So that's good news. It also may lead to overturning some of California's sillier laws, but only those that apply to gun ownership in general, not those that apply to where you can carry a firearm.

Today was a victory, no mistake about it. But it was just one of many victories that we must win over the next few decades. The good news is that Heller tilts the field strongly in our favor as these cases work their way through the courts.
Well said!

[denton]

There is a delicious twist to 9th Circuit's ruling:

Just three days ago, Chicago filed their brief in their case presently before the 7th Circuit. One of their arguments was, in effect, "Well, the 9th Circuit has held that 2A is not binding on the states, so the 7th Circuit should too." Today's ruling overturns the old 9th Circuit doctrine and puts a pretty huge hole in that argument.

I shouldn't take pleasure in someone else's hardship......

Of Arms and the Law link (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/04/additional_thou.php)

[daveohno]

All we need is for 1 pro second ammendment Supreme Court Justice to retire with the present administration and all bets on the 2nd Ammendment are off. We are indeed at a precarious time now.

[Frank]

Th following is from an email I received this morning:(CALGUNS.NET) (The Calguns Foundation) - CA. 04-20-2009.

Today the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the landmark Nordyke v King case. This case forces the federal Heller decision to apply to the states.

From Nordyke v King:

"We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’ ... We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments. "

While we have won the greater 2nd amendment victory, our friends the Nordykes have still lost their ability to conduct a gun show in Alameda County under some technicalities of procedural law.

While the Incorporation of Heller is a tremendous victory it is NEVER the desire, or intent of CGF to gain legislative victory at the cost of the Defendant. There are separate options for appeal that are being discussed, but that will be handled between the Nordykes and their Lawyers.

That said there is an interesting aspect of ''pretending to lose" while winning. Since Alameda has “won” they cannot appeal Incorporation to the full Court nor to SCOTUS - while those options for the Nordyke's to appeal appear to be open - separate from the 14th Amendment Incorporation issue.

This is a game changing ruling - and the ramifications of it are being applied to current laws as we speak by the finest legal minds in the country.

Movement forward from here, while easier in theory, can be no less well considered and thought through then plans being made last week.

Now is definitely a time to celebrate but NOT a time to try to assume that the laws have all been voided.

Martyrs are not needed right now, if ever. Let's keep playing it smart and leave the reactionary errors to the other side.

As for the direct application and aspects of this ruling and how they can be applied, rest assured that these are the subject of MUCH discussion and planning even as you read this. CCW, LOC, AWB and many other issues are being looked at and handled almost like triage. Not only is importance being considered but so is viability and “stackability.” We want to use each victory as a building block for the next victory.

Keep watching Calguns.net - and the best and most effective thing you can do right now is to donate to The Calguns Foundation, and the NRA. (links below)

Thank you. -

Ben Cannon, Board of Directors, The Calguns Foundation.

[BluegrazzGuy]

This decision overturns their own Hickman ruling of a few years ago which said that California's at-whim concealed permit system was OK. I disagree. Although the case incorporates the 2nd Amendment and makes it applicable to states, the language pretty much applies the 2nd Amendment on an ad hoc basis. When determining the County could prohibit firearms at public venues on county property, the court emphasized Heller's language about protection of the home and how the DC laws had completely stripped the right to possess an operable firearm at home. I don't think concealed carry will ever be considered a fundamental right under the 2nd Amendment, thus weakening any argument that prior decisions on California's concealed permit system should be changed.

[Frank]

...Although the case incorporates the 2nd Amendment and makes it applicable to states, the language pretty much applies the 2nd Amendment on an ad hoc basis.... That's the way is always is and always will be. The court only decides the case before it. More expansive language would be dicta and not binding precedent.

We will need to deal with each issue.

[Rich-D]

Frank, We are fortunate to have a Retired Lawyer as a member!

Thanks,
Rich

[daveohno]

I always look forward to his posts when something legal comes up because he has a working knowledge of the law and has a shooters perspective to go with it.

[Rich-D]

I always look forward to his posts when something legal comes up because he has a working knowledge of the law and has a shooters perspective to go with it.
BTW: The site has reached a milestone, The above post, being the 1,000th post! :)

Rich

[Frank]

One thing I find interesting is that thus far I haven't seen any local press coverage of this. That doesn't mean there isn't any, but I haven't seen anything in our local paper or in the general Internet sites with news links. Very low profile in the outside world so far.