Comments on: Incorporation of 2A Rejected in 7th Circuit http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/06/02/incorporation-of-2a-rejected-in-7th-circuit/ The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State ... Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:52:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Mike w. http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/06/02/incorporation-of-2a-rejected-in-7th-circuit/#comment-43852 Mike w. Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:24:15 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=10838#comment-43852 Agreed Ish. It's a shame we didn't end up with full incorporation which Justice Black was always a big proponent of. Agreed Ish. It’s a shame we didn’t end up with full incorporation which Justice Black was always a big proponent of.

]]> By: Ish http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/06/02/incorporation-of-2a-rejected-in-7th-circuit/#comment-43833 Ish Wed, 03 Jun 2009 01:48:23 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=10838#comment-43833 Mind you, I don't _like_ the outcome and think that this whole "incorporation" thing was hooey in 1870-whatever and is still hooey in 2009. The entire dicta section of the opinion is anti-gun hooey as well... But it does set the stage for a nice an tidy split Circuit question to put before SCotUS. Mind you, I don’t _like_ the outcome and think that this whole “incorporation” thing was hooey in 1870-whatever and is still hooey in 2009. The entire dicta section of the opinion is anti-gun hooey as well…

But it does set the stage for a nice an tidy split Circuit question to put before SCotUS.

]]> By: Ian Argent http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/06/02/incorporation-of-2a-rejected-in-7th-circuit/#comment-43830 Ian Argent Wed, 03 Jun 2009 01:25:29 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=10838#comment-43830 If this does come up to SCOTUS in 2010 it will keep the pressure on the blue dogs. If this does come up to SCOTUS in 2010 it will keep the pressure on the blue dogs.

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/06/02/incorporation-of-2a-rejected-in-7th-circuit/#comment-43822 Sebastian Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:39:06 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=10838#comment-43822 It doesn't really have anything to do with the California Constitution. The 9th Circuit chose to follow the modern Supreme Court cases that outline the criteria for incorporation, and concluded that the Second Amendment met that criteria for incorporation. The 7th circuit chose to stuck with the 19th century cases and punt to the Supreme Court. It doesn’t really have anything to do with the California Constitution. The 9th Circuit chose to follow the modern Supreme Court cases that outline the criteria for incorporation, and concluded that the Second Amendment met that criteria for incorporation. The 7th circuit chose to stuck with the 19th century cases and punt to the Supreme Court.

]]> By: Jdude http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/06/02/incorporation-of-2a-rejected-in-7th-circuit/#comment-43819 Jdude Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:28:28 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=10838#comment-43819 I have to agree with Ish. For them, controlling law still is those old 1800's cases until instructed otherwise. The difference in California is that their Constitution is automatically incorporating, so the Heller ruling applied there immediately (in my limited understanding of the law.) I have to agree with Ish. For them, controlling law still is those old 1800′s cases until instructed otherwise. The difference in California is that their Constitution is automatically incorporating, so the Heller ruling applied there immediately (in my limited understanding of the law.)

]]> By: Ish http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/06/02/incorporation-of-2a-rejected-in-7th-circuit/#comment-43810 Ish Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:23:20 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=10838#comment-43810 Not terribly surprised by this and I am rather surprised by how much I agree with the opinion of the Court. Cruikshank, Presser and Miller are still valid law - the opinion is correct to point out that Heller didn't touch this issue - and the only proper thing for the Court of Appeals to do is kick the ball up to SCotUS. Not terribly surprised by this and I am rather surprised by how much I agree with the opinion of the Court. Cruikshank, Presser and Miller are still valid law – the opinion is correct to point out that Heller didn’t touch this issue – and the only proper thing for the Court of Appeals to do is kick the ball up to SCotUS.

]]>