The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has announced that it will re-hear the case of Nordyke v. King sometime during the week of Sept. 21 en banc, and gun rights activists are now justifiably concerned that a hearing before a full panel may nullify the court’s earlier finding that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states through the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.
Gun rights watchdog Eugene Volokh notes on his website, the Volokh Conspiracy, that “This technically means that there’s no longer a circuit split on the subject, which diminishes the likelihood of Supreme Court review of the Second and Seventh Circuit decisions rejecting incorporation.” Volokh also had predicted earlier the case would not be given an en banc hearing by the Ninth Circuit, leaving him to observe with some embarrassment, “So please view my other guesses about what courts will do with suitable skepticism.”
The Second Circuit case is Maloney v. Cuomo, the case in which Sonia Sotomayor’s panel ruled that the Second Amendment is not incorporated, while the Seventh Circuit cases are McDonald v. Chicago and NRA v. Chicago. Those are the cases challenging the Chicago handgun ban. McDonald v. Chicago is being fought by the Second Amendment Foundation and Illinois State Rifle Association.
A reversal at the Ninth Circuit would essentially mean that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, but that state and local governments can ignore it and still place heavy restrictions on gun ownership. That’s the way some in the gun rights community look at this, regardless what state constitutional right to keep and bear arms provisions may exist.
This is important because the Ninth Circuit ruling applied to several western states, including Washington, which enjoys a very strong state constitutional provision on the right to bear arms in defense of one’s self or the state. Ideally, the en banc hearing will result in an affirmation of the original panel’s ruling from earlier this year, or an even stronger statement on incorporation.
In the “big picture” of gun rights, a reversal would maintain the status quo, which many gun rights activists maintain is not acceptable. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that shall not be infringed, they insist, yet state and local governments have been infringing on that right for decades. Those local and state gun controls have invariably been justified as a measure to reduce violent crime, but it hasn’t worked that way at all.
If there is any doubt about that, just look at Chicago, where SAF, NRA and ISRA challenges to the handgun ban have brought a slug of briefs from state attorneys general supporting the plaintiffs. The Windy City – which has a bag of wind mayor who blames honest gun ownership for his inability to deal with violent criminals – has had something of a blood bath in progress. During one recent 24-hour period, 14 people were shot. The July 4 weekend claimed 11 lives.
Chicago closed out the year with 509 homicides, an increase of about 15 percent over 2007, but still among the lowest numbers in decades -- Chicago Tribune
Incredibly, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels – who was born in Chicago but moved to the Pacific Northwest as a child – seems to think that the Chicago approach to gun control is a good idea. He is currently pushing the envelope by requiring gun bans on public property to be part of any contract the city signs with an event organizer. SAF and NRA are poised with plaintiffs to sue Nickels and the city if the mayor should go through with his threatened “executive order” to ban even legally carried handguns from all city property. He’s already been told by State Attorney General Rob McKenna that such a ban would be clearly illegal under state preemption.
Nickels should do some quick math. Chicago lost 11 people in one weekend. So far this year, Seattle has had a dozen homicides, and not all of them involved firearms. There have been two fatal shootings by police as well. In 2008, Chicago logged 509 homicides. Seattle posted 28.
There were 28 homicides in Seattle in 2008 -- a number slightly higher than the previous year, but 21 people fewer than a decade ago. - Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Ironically, the violent crime situation in Seattle is so good that -- with Nickels lamenting -- the city will not be getting any "stimulus" money from the administration of his pal, Barack Obama, to protect police jobs. Seattle is one of four prominent cities that will not be getting such monies.
Even more of a challenge to Nickels' ability to exercise logic is that the number of homicides in Seattle has dropped about 40 percent in the last decade, during a period when gun ownership and concealed carry licenses increased in Washington, including in his city.
In Chicago, you can’t carry a handgun legally. In Seattle, you can legally carry a handgun openly or concealed. Tens of thousands of Seattle residents own handguns and they don’t have to license or register them – despite the city’s reputation as a haven for Liberal elitists, who are typically anti-gun, or at least against others owning guns while they hypocritically own them.
Which scenario seems safer, Chicago with its handgun ban or Seattle with widespread legal handgun ownership?
Visit with other Gun Rights Examiners:
NOTICE: Check out the activity on GunVoter.org, a relatively new forum for gun rights activists, fonded by Jeff and Chris Knox, sons of gun rights champion Neal Knox.
Comments
The concern that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will re hear this case en banc is discouraging, particularly since this is a very liberal anti-gun rights court of appeals. Is it a manouver designed to eliminate the discrepancies between the 9th, 7th and 2nd? Probably. This is another instance where our rights have been eroded to the point of no return.
Will this make the country ripe for insurection, riots, etc.? Should gun owner's take to the streets like black's did to win their civil rights? Are not all civil rights rights enumerated in the constitution, and some not so enumerated (amendment 9). It's time for America to wake up. We are on the brink of totalitarian tyranny. Up until now it's simply been a tyranny here and there, a lawful tyranny because we have accepted the bad laws, and in some cases, with the NRA, even helped them along being told they could participate, or get nothing. That isn't a choice. That's being told to capitulate or lose the whole enchilada. That is, in its basic essence, tyranny! Will we start to speak up and out now? Or, do we wait a little longer, and then a little longer again.
I hope the result is the weakening of second amendment rights, a positive step towards repealing this mistake of an amendment. It's because of the second amendment that violent criminals and psychos in America are so well armed. And don't forget the nra who want America to be unsafe so they can have a reason for existance.
Israel's concern seems well founded,But this will likely clear a contradiction in recognizing incorporaration of 2A into Fourteenth Amendment protections against the states AND allowing county governments to prohibit gun shows on public property such as fairgrounds.
Alex needs a History lesson. 2A was put in to protect the citizen from 1)a tyrannical state whether foreign or domestic or 2)private threat such as exhibited by the criminals you fear. You should look at 20th Century history where Germany,Cambodia,China and Russia disarmed their populations before the purges or comparative crime rates in Austrailia(Pre/Post Port Arthur)and Britain(Dunblaine)where the criminals knew to find unarmed victoms. These criminals still had access to guns and other weapons AFTER the ban.
Sorry to break it to you Dave but widespread ownership of arms doesn't actually correlate to the reduction of crimes the same goes for the opposite as well there is no way to prove that more guns affects crime rates at all. If people could only realize that crime is not about the weapon but rather the social and economic factors that happen in life. Hey Alex the guy that shot up Virginia tech didn't do it cause he had a gun he did it because he was crazy.
Mike, I hate to rain on your parade, but I have heard the "correlation does not equal causation" until I am sick of it. Here's why. Those mopes who say that leave out a very important aspect. While the statement in and of itself is true, the lie of ommission is committed when it is not also stated that "causation does equal correlation".
Until you guys are willing to look at the entire proposition I am going to assume that so many correlations in all venues of "more guns, less crime" at the very least, indicates there must be some causation. Else the correlation would not be so ubiquitous across so many socio-economic, geographical, and cultural venues.
Address that first. The proper strategy or tactic if you prefer, is to secure our persons and neighborhoods first. We have to place fear of retaliation in the minds of the criminal to get him to stop robbing, killing, raping before we can address the issues you raise. Any fool can see this. Hell, Helen Keller could see that.
Further Mike, there is a way to prove it. There have been several studies now conducted of convicted violent offenders and in each it was revealed that they feared running up against an armed citizen far more than they feared the police. That fear of a possibly armed prospective victim cannot help but be a causative factor in the correlation of more guns in the hands of citizens being found in venues of lowering violent crime rates. Especially when that lowered violent crime rate has been so consistent across all venues where citizens are armed.
Dave, I expect the en banc decision to reject the earlier decision. This was requested by a justice on the Court. This is not about law, or the interpretation of the law. This is political.
As one of the most liberal, big government courts in the nation, I expect that the majority of the sitting justices on the en banc review will be eager to remove any reason for the USSC to hear either case from the Ninth and Second Circuits, thus leaving all the infringements in place that now exist, without the USSC nor the administation having to take a stance either way, yet leaving the Second Amendment emasculated in venues such as Chicago, NYC, etc.
While not acually a win for the rights deniers, it would avoid a defeat.
Anyway, that's my prediction. We'll see if I'm right in a while.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!