Seems that things may be looking up a bit... Funny that this didn't make the national news!

"Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Holds that the Second Amendment Applies to the States

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Fairfax, Va. – Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit marked a milestone in Second Amendment history by ruling that the Second Amendment limits state and local government infringements on our right to keep and bear arms through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. NRA has been involved in, and supportive of, this case for the past ten years and has filed several amicus briefs in the case.
“The historic Heller decision was a major victory for law-abiding gun owners and recognized that the federal government could not infringe on our right to keep and bear arms,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “Today’s decision, which applies to the states in the Ninth Circuit, ensures that the fundamental freedoms affirmed in Heller are not just limited to the residents of Washington, D.C.”
In 1999, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance that made it a misdemeanor to possess a firearm on county property, effectively banning gun shows. This ordinance affected a local business, owned by Russell and Sallie Nordyke, which promotes gun shows throughout California. In an attempt to continue holding their gun shows on the Alameda county fairgrounds property, the Nordykes filed suit to strike down the ordinance.
The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the ordinance banning guns on county property, but found, consistent with the views of most Second Amendment scholars, that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for all law-abiding Americans. NRA is also pursuing litigation on that issue in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois. That case is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
“The NRA shares the Nordykes' disappointment with the ruling on the county ordinance, as gun shows should not be discriminated against by local government entities. The incorporation portion of the decision, however, is a major step forward in enshrining our Second Amendment freedoms,” said Cox.
“This decision brings us closer to seeing Heller applied throughout the land,” concluded Cox. “After nearly 10 years of litigation, the hard work of the Nordykes, their attorneys, Donald Kilmer and Don Kates, and NRA’s legal team has resulted in today’s historic decision.”


www.nraila.org/News/Re...x?ID=12391

Interesting story that will not be carried by the left wing media. Probably only FOX news would report it. All the best...
Gil

Glad to hear it. I agree with ya Gil Fox would probably be the only station to report it.

Joe

They rule states and local governments can not infringe upon the 2nd Amendment but turn around and rule in favor Alameda county ordnance!!!

I find this a little confusing!!!

Since when did our constitutional rights start having boundaries???

HOPEFULLY THE HELLER DECISION HAS STARTED SOMETHING !!!!!! It would be nice to see the anit gun laws go like dust before the wind!!! We still have a fight to go!!!!!

The Courts have been limiting the Constitution since they first decided they had the right to Judical Review, which is found no where in the Constitution, it's under implied powers. And of course they can limit it. It's not saying you can't own them it's just saying where you cannot have them. Like no guns within so many feet of a school. Two different things.

Well ,we need to start being even more vocal

Chambered I believe you have a valid point. The right to KEEP AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed!!!!!!!!

The right to arms has been infringed for decades. The 1934 NFA, 1939, the US vs Miller, the 1968 GCA --- all of these served to limit access and type of firearms legally possessed. There has been an underlying agenda to restrict and make illegal entire types of firearms. Heller is an important decision, however, the entire aforementioned legislation needs eradication to be able to see real progress.

Mostly, we simply want no further incursions into the status quo. But, we have allowed the cookie of freedom to be nibbled on for decades and that will continue, IMO, and that cookie is signiicantly smaller than the originators of the Constitution envisioned. Ammo and components are the achilles heel of the gun culture and that will certainly come in to play in future restrictions.

The NRA, despite its vaunted position, has done little to roll back the oppresive legislation cited above. Strike down GCA 68 and NFA 34 for starters and we will see some progress. I look for an assertive and agressive organization to come forth that will take the case of guns and citizens to the general public and not be content with preaching to the choir. We know we are all on the same side, but, our numbers are diminished and we need to go on the offensive in the war of words.

We need to point out the failures of Australia's gun control, those of England and other repressive governments. We need to cite the actions of Stalin and Hitler and put that into perspective. But, we need to take the case to The People, all of the people. Where is our champion?

While making people panic works sometimes I like the idea of using hard facts and history to show what happens when we no longer have the right to guns. I guess it might be my back ground but I like the idea of sending hard facts, things that can be backed up by things other than websites. We need to do an old fashion letter writing campaign siting sources that aren't seen as "hear say" sources. It hasn't worked in other countries taking away the guns, it did make things worse. But to just put it in a letter makes it sound like we are panicing. Writing it with the data to back it up will work much better.
With us being in the internet day and age does any one know where we can find the data that is either a government website or a hard copy.

Tink,
Probably the best source for facts is the NRA resources library. If you go to the NRA main site and scout around you will come to the information, which is volumes. The NRA has the background in legal cases fought and statistical data gathered to support those cases.

Guys, As I said before, the reason that the board of directors saw a big change several years ago was the preception that the NRA was soft on the antis and on congress and most members wanted the fur to fly. But, like every orginization, the NRA must choose its fights and then go for the throat. I think they have done a pretty good job, say in the past 5-10 years. We see concrete results now and hope the best is yet to come.
Best,
Ed

handloader and tink, I have been saying these things for many years and what we need is some people in office who will listen and act!!!!! Facts mean nothing to the libs and with Obama trying to curtail free speech we had better be getting real active and vocal!!!!!!

There are a few notes one needs to remember about US vs Miller...

I've underlined a few important aspects.

#1 - The defense didn't show up. Miller was a crook and a snitch, hiding from the folks he'd snitched on. Since he was murdered shortly after the trial he probably had good reason to hide. He also apparently didn't pay his lawyer so there was no one to defend the Second Amendment right.

#2 - Because there was no defense there wasn't anyone to submit evidence that shoguns had military/militia use. Seems kinda silly that the USSC judges were unaware of this but there it is. Part of the decidion reads "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158."

#3 - Another part of the decision is also always overlooked. It reads "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

#4 - One other tidbit, "Also 'Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs."

This case has some flaws but its also obvious that the USSC did NOT intend to severely restrict private ownership of firearms at that time. I do think they were swayed by the "gangster violence" of the time when they made their decision.

Some reference sites:

usgovinfo.about.com/li...miller.htm

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p..._id=981831

Thanks, Mike for the informative post. From this decision we see the roots of much of the mayhem to the Constitution and Bill of Rights that followed and is present today. We can be assured that the BO Administration will have some further incursions on the liberty of citizens when they sense a compromise of some type will be acceptable. Another little bite on the cookie of freedom.

At what point are we to consider such further inroads as treason? Will there be an attempt at overruling Posse Commitatus? What then?

The justification case is being built by Holder, Clinton and others and, while factually incorrect and intentionally misrepresented, the NRA has been rather quiet about such lies. Now we have Napolitano declaring ex-US Military as potential terrorists. Now belief in God is part of placing you in that catagory as well.

In God We Trust