Incorporation!!!!

[RomanDad]

The Nordykes lose....

BUT WE WIN!!!!!



http://romandad.com/Nordyke.pdf.pdf

[tango-52]

Hickman v. Block was the case that set up discretionary issue of CCWs for Sheriffs. This ruling totally invalidated that case. Discretionary issue is no longer supported by the courts! Shall issue here we come!

To reach this argument on the merits, we must first
decide whether Heller abrogated Hickman. It did. Hickman
rested on our conclusion that the Second Amendment protects
only a collective right; Heller squarely overruled such conclu-
sion. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2799 (“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second
Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear
arms.”). Thus the basis for Hickman’s holding has evaporated,
and the opinion is clearly irreconcilable with Heller. In such
circumstances, we consider our prior decision abrogated by
higher authority.4 See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899-
900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

[Nightingale]

[SierraNevadaCCW]

Maybe someone here can write in simple to understand, English as to exactly WHY this particular case leads toward, makes, follows, or whatever...California into Incorporation with Heller.

Thanks

Simple. Think Simple.

This is good...but not simple:::
To reach this argument on the merits, we must first
decide whether Heller abrogated Hickman. It did. Hickman
rested on our conclusion that the Second Amendment protects
only a collective right; Heller squarely overruled such conclu-
sion. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2799 (“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second
Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear
arms.”). Thus the basis for Hickman’s holding has evaporated,
and the opinion is clearly irreconcilable with Heller. In such
circumstances, we consider our prior decision abrogated by
higher authority.4 See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899-
900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by SierraNevadaCCW

Maybe someone here can write in simple to understand, English as to exactly WHY this particular case leads toward, makes, follows, or whatever...California into Incorporation with Heller.

Thanks

Simple. Think Simple.

They specifically state that it is incorporated.

[font=Times New Roman]

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.

[sholling]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

The Nordykes lose....

BUT WE WIN!!!!!



http://romandad.com/Nordyke.pdf.pdf

I've come to respect your legal expertise and would really love to read an analysis of what this really means to all of us.

[SierraNevadaCCW]

Originally Posted by THE Gimper

They specifically state that it is incorporated.

So California is "officially" incorporated?

If that's the case, then when do all the AW, Mag laws, carry laws and other trash get tossed?

[tango-52]

Sorry about that. The section I posted specifically related to Hickman and the "discretionary issuance of CCWs by Sheriffs is OK" being totally thrown out. The section about incorporation is here:

[12]

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.17 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.

[Nightingale]

Originally Posted by SierraNevadaCCW

Maybe someone here can write in simple to understand, English as to exactly WHY this particular case leads toward, makes, follows, or whatever...California into Incorporation with Heller.

Thanks

Simple. Think Simple.

If you're asking what I think you're asking...

This is a 9th Circuit case. California is part of the 9th Circuit. Therefore any ruling by the 9th Circuit court is binding on all lower courts in California. The 9th Circuit just ruled that gun ownership is an individual right that must be respected by state governments, not just the federal government. Therefore, gun ownership is an individual right in California.

Did that answer your question?

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by SierraNevadaCCW

So California is "officially" incorporated?

If that's the case, then when do all the AW, Mag laws, carry laws and other trash get tossed?

Probably going to require more lawsuits, but they are slam dunks.

[SierraNevadaCCW]

Originally Posted by Nightingale

If you're asking what I think you're asking...

This is a 9th Circuit case. California is part of the 9th Circuit. Therefore any ruling by the 9th Circuit court is binding on all lower courts in California. The 9th Circuit just ruled that gun ownership is an individual right that must be respected by state governments, not just the federal government. Therefore, gun ownership is an individual right in California.

Did that answer your question?

Originally Posted by THE Gimper

Probably going to require more lawsuits, but they are slam dunks.

Yes... I got excited there for a minute...then I calmed down.

[Nightingale]

Originally Posted by SierraNevadaCCW

So California is "officially" incorporated?

If that's the case, then when do all the AW, Mag laws, carry laws and other trash get tossed?

Unfortunately, even though a law may be unconstitutional, it doesn't automatically get "tossed" when a court ruling comes down against it. Often, the law has to be challenged in court as unconstitutional if the government doesn't have the sense to repeal it (and since when does the government have any sense at all?).

The laws can get challenged in several ways. Often, a PAC will challenge the laws in a civil suit. Other times, individuals who have run afoul of those laws already and are serving sentences will appeal in light of the new court decisions, and sometimes individuals will face charges based on those laws and will challenge them at that time.

[SierraNevadaCCW]

Originally Posted by Nightingale

Unfortunately, even though a law may be unconstitutional, it doesn't automatically get "tossed" when a court ruling comes down against it. Often, the law has to be challenged in court as unconstitutional if the government doesn't have the sense to repeal it (and since when does the government have any sense at all?).

The laws can get challenged in several ways. Often, a PAC will challenge the laws in a civil suit. Other times, individuals who have run afoul of those laws already and are serving sentences will appeal in light of the new court decisions, and sometimes individuals will face charges based on those laws and will challenge them at that time.

What about these bills in the California Assembly and Senate? (AB962), etc.
The liberals pass them and we have to keep suing like in D.C.?

[tango-52]

Originally Posted by Nightingale

If you're asking what I think you're asking...

This is a 9th Circuit case. California is part of the 9th Circuit. Therefore any ruling by the 9th Circuit court is binding on all lower courts in California. The 9th Circuit just ruled that gun ownership is an individual right that must be respected by state governments, not just the federal government. Therefore, gun ownership is an individual right in California.

Did that answer your question?

The ruling also specifically called out that it was incorporated against municipalities as well.

[Tachman]

So should I pospone my CCW application? What about Banned guns does this open the door?