9th Circuit Rules Second Amendment Includes Right to Acquire Firearms

[TITAN308]

Not anything that directly effects my side of the country, but this goes deep into California as one of the reasons this was in court in the first place.

A Ninth Circuit three-judge panel has remanded the case of Teixeira vs. Alameda County back to the lower court for reconsideration. What does that mean? As the ruling reads, “the right to purchase and sell firearms is part and parcel of the historically recognized right to keep and bear arms.” Translation: backdoor gun sales prohibitions that feature set-off zones from residential areas are unconstitutional .

Source: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...300269192.html

Quoting the Supreme Court ruling in SAF's 2010 landmark McDonald case, Judge O'Scannlain reiterated, "The right of law-abiding citizens to keep and to bear arms is not a 'second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause.'"

A clear case of "some animals are more equal than others" type of gig it seems.

[Xeones]

Well I guess this is going to the Supreme court sometime.

[Daedius]

A clear case of "some animals are more equal than others" type of gig it seems.

Misinterpretation of the actuality of this being what was meant:



!

[TITAN308]

Misinterpretation of the actuality of this being what was meant:

Mind blown.

[Wildtree]

When I go outside, pretty much everyone I see has arms. Mostly two of them.
Sometimes only 1, or parts thereof.
Even bear arms I see on occasion.

[TZucchini]

Apparently 10 guns stores in Alameda county wasn't enough.

[Lenonis]

I don't really understand the seeming desire by some to abolish any sort of restriction on guns.

I'm not anti-gun by any stretch, but there are some people, mainly the mentally ill, who I don't want to be able to access guns. The phrase "common sense gun reform" is meaningless these days, but truly there has to be some common understanding of how guns should be handled.

I mean...no right is absolute. Not even the first amendment is without restriction.

[nextormento]

I'm not sure I get it.
Did someone had the audacity to debate that folks have a right to bear them, but not buy acquire them?

[Deletedaccount1]

Not even the first amendment is without restriction.

How so?

10chars

[TITAN308]

I don't really understand the seeming desire by some to abolish any sort of restriction on guns.

I'm not anti-gun by any stretch, but there are some people, mainly the mentally ill, who I don't want to be able to access guns. The phrase "common sense gun reform" is meaningless these days, but truly there has to be some common understanding of how guns should be handled.

I mean...no right is absolute. Not even the first amendment is without restriction.

What does this rant have to do with the topic? Did you even read it?

[Stormdash]

I'm genuinely impressed that the 9th rose above their reputation and got a case right.

[TZucchini]

I'm genuinely impressed that the 9th rose above their reputation and got a case right.

Oh, no 9th Circus today? I suppose we'll reserve that title for times when we disagree with them.

[Lenonis]

How so?

You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Libel and slander laws exist. There really is no such thing as a completely unrestricted freedom. And believe it or not that's a good thing.

[Stormdash]

Oh, no 9th Circus today? I suppose we'll reserve that title for times when we disagree with them.

Oh, they'd have to keep with the trend to shed 9th Circus. Not to mention, 9th Circuit Court of Reversals. But it's a positive start! Not making rulings like this, is how they earned those kind of nicknames.

[Lenonis]

What does this rant have to do with the topic? Did you even read it?

I think I might have misunderstood. I thought this was basically stating that attempts to restrict off the books gun sales was unconstitutional -- but now that I've re-read it I think I might have got my wires crossed.

[Cthulhu 2020]

For those who are really confused about the ruling, since it wasn't made apparent in the OP, this ruling just rules the city ordinance that gun sales may not occur within 500 feet of a residential area as unconstitutional.

[Stormdash]

For those who are really confused about the ruling, since it wasn't made apparent in the OP, this ruling just rules the city ordinance that gun sales may not occur within 500 feet of a residential area as unconstitutional.

The OP didn't misrepresent, since the ruling itself is premised on the 2nd Amendment including the right to acquire, i.e. the business of buying and selling the arms which the people have the right to keep and bear. And there is no civil right that has meaning if prohibited within 500 feet of any residential area.

The main appellate battle going on right now isn't over standard of review (the question left open by Heller and McDonald between strict and intermediate scrutiny) as often as it is over whether or not courts are going to acknowledge when a challenged act of government even implicates the 2nd Amendment at all. Basically, the 9th Circuit made clear that, yes, this is a 2nd Amendment issue, and remanded to the court below in order to treat it accordingly.

[TZucchini]

For those who are really confused about the ruling, since it wasn't made apparent in the OP, this ruling just rules the city ordinance that gun sales may not occur within 500 feet of a residential area as unconstitutional.

As well as school zones and liquor stores.

[Hooked]

The ninth circuit is the most liberal/ regressive court in the country.

[TITAN308]

As well as school zones and liquor stores.

I mean honestly, what does it matter? Here in Augusta there is an indoor shooting range / gun store across the street from a high school. They've been open a very very long time. Not one child shot.