The following article, interesting also in itself, represents a test to determine if a commenter, talk-show host, or whatever, is qualified to speak on any matter Constitutional:
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= =========
Hattip: NRA:
http://www.nraila/. org/News/ Read/InTheNews. aspx?ID=12829
And for those who don't understand "incorporation" in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights (hint: It has nothing to do with running a company), see this:
http://en.wikipedia/ .org/wiki/ Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights) (If you're not sure, see my test at the end of this email.) Or, just nod your head up and down and say, "I hope this comes out in our favor."
http://www.cbsnews/. com/blogs/ 2009/08/25/ taking_liberties /entry5263569. shtml
August 25, 2009 2:30 AM
High-Profile Gun Rights Case Inches Toward Supreme Court
10 comments
Posted by Declan McCullagh
A federal appeals court on September 24 will hear a high-profile gun rights case that's a leading candidate to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is likely to decide whether the Second Amendment's guarantee of a right to "keep and bear arms" restricts only the federal government -- the current state of affairs -- or whether it can be used to strike down intrusive state and local laws too.
A three-judge panel ruled that the Second Amendment does apply to the states. But now a larger Ninth Circuit panel will rehear the case, a procedure reserved only for issues of exceptional importance, which means the earlier decision could be upheld or overruled.
Two other circuits have said the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, a legal term known as "incorporation. " If the Ninth Circuit's en banc panel continues to disagree with its peers, the Supreme Court almost certainly would step in.
The Ninth Circuit case involves Russell and Sallie Nordyke, who run a gun show business that would like to rent Alameda County's fairgrounds (the county includes Oakland and is across the bay from San Francisco). After being blocked, they sued. The author of the ordinance in question, then-county supervisor Mary King, actually claimed such shows are nothing but "a place for people to display guns for worship as deities for the collectors who treat them as icons of patriotism."
The hearing is set for 10 a.m. PT in the federal courthouse at 95 Seventh Street in San Francisco.
============ ========= ========= ========= ===
Here's a test over whether you understand this "incorporation" function:
The last paragraph of the last comment on this article (as of when I looked at it) demonstrates the mindset of people who have no idea about the federalist approach of our national Constitution. If what he says sounds right to you, you need to study the issue:
...
"the language of the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear to most people, especially the last part: "the Right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." What does the word infringed mean to most people? Webster's defines it as "touched upon" or "interfered with". Clearly the authors of the second amendment intended this amendment, at least, to apply to actions by any group of individuals, and any level of government-- lccal, state, or federal.
"The Fourteenth Amendments "equal protection" clause should not even be needed. The Constitution itself states that it is the "Supreme Law of the Land." No law passed by any municipality, county, or state government was to be any more restrictive of individual's rights than any law passed by the federal government subject to the Consitution. all local, state and federal officials are required to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States."
This fellow preceded these paragraphs with some partially valid observations, then ruins it with this uninformed drivel. Again, if this sounds right, you need to study the matter.
