2nd amendment is indeed incorporated into the Constitution through the 14th amendment

[eerw]

Ninth Circuit Court has rules that the 2nd amendment is indeed incorporated into the Constitution through the 14th amendment.

The opinion basically follows the Heller opinion from last year. The Heller opinion invalidated a Washington D.C. ordinance which banned all gun possession in the District. The SCOTUS ruled that this was unconstitutional because gun ownership “necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty.” Following this framework, the 9th Circuit has basically said that since this is a fundamental right the 2nd Amendment must be incorporated into the 14th Amendment. Interestingly, the 9th Circuit did not use the Priviliges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, but by the Due Process Clause.

From the concurrence:

First, as Judge O’Scannlain has aptly explained, the rights secured by the Second Amendment are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and “necessary to the Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty.” The salient policies underlying the protection of the right to bear arms are of inestimable importance. The right to bear arms is a bulwark against external invasion. We should not be overconfident that oceans on our east and west coasts alone can preserve security. We recently saw in the case of the terrorist attack on Mumbai that terrorists may enter a country covertly by ocean routes, landing in small craft and then assembling to wreak havoc. That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in an attack on any community before more professional forces arrived.

Second, the right to bear arms is a protection against the possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with individual diligence.

Third, while the Second Amendment thus stands as a protection against both external threat and internal tyranny, the recognition of the individual’s right in the Second Amendment, and its incorporation by the Due Process Clause against the states, is not inconsistent with the reasonable regulation of weaponry. All weapons are not “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment, so, for example, no individual could sensibly argue that the Second Amendment gives them a right to have nuclear weapons or chemical weapons in their home for self-defense. Also, important governmental interests will justify reasonable regulation of rifles and handguns, and the problem for our courts will be to define, in the context of particular regulation by the states and municipalities, what is reasonable and permissible and what is unreasonable and offensive to the Second Amendment.

The ruling then states:

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.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...20/0715763.pdf

[Mtn.man]

Saw this on my Natlawmandisc group. Thanks

[SkullWorks]

9th Circus

Nice to have another ruling in our favor, just wished the .gov would take it seriously.

[ChunkyMonkey]

+1

[Dr_Fwd]

I will never understand why they even questining it at the first place...

[ChunkyMonkey]

the liberal non-profit group needs their reasoning for their fund raising even-though if it is not reasonable.

[Eow]

It's really not that much of a victory, but it is something. Basically applying the controlling precedent of last year's supreme court decision in Heller to say that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. How that hasn't been immediately obvious to anyone reading the second amendment is beyond me. It was fashionable in liberal circles (like the ACLU) to take the view that the 2nd amendment was a right that only applied to state militias, which they interpreted to mean the national guard.