BREAKING NEWS regarding Incorporation of the 2A !!

[son of the revolution]

Two-thirds of State Attorneys General File Amicus Brief Supporting Second Amendment Incorporation


Tuesday, July 07, 2009


Fairfax, Va. – Two-thirds of the nation’s attorneys general have filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case of NRA v. Chicago and hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This bi-partisan group of 33 attorneys general, along with the Attorney General of California in a separate filing, agrees with the NRA’s position that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms in the home for self-defense, disagreeing with the decision recently issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

“The historical record clearly shows that the Second Amendment was intended to apply to every American in every state in the country,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “As the Supreme Court said clearly in last year’s landmark Heller decision, the Second Amendment protects an individual right that ‘belongs to all Americans’. Two-thirds of America’s state Attorneys General agree.”

The Seventh Circuit claimed precedent bound it from holding in favor of incorporation of the Second Amendment. However, it should have followed the lead of the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Nordyke v. King, which found that those cases don't prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Seventh Circuit opinion upholds current bans on the possession of handguns in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois.

California attorney general Edmund G. Brown Jr. is filing a separate brief arguing that the Supreme Court should take up NRA’s appeal and hold that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States.

“It is fundamentally wrong to violate the civil rights of any law-abiding person based on their zip code,” Cox concluded. “The fundamental right of self-defense must be respected by every jurisdiction throughout our country.”


http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/lit...micusFinal.pdf

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/lit...nal_Amicus.pdf


Map in thumbnail of States AG's that did and did not sign the amicus brief , Red is For , Blue Against

[TXDMERC73]

thats good news! they should also adopt the Castle Doctrine for every state as well

[unloved]

Good to see AG Corbett on the 'gets it' list.

[son of the revolution]

Originally Posted by TXDMERC73

thats good news! they should also adopt the Castle Doctrine for every state as well

Someone throw up the Double Face Palm for me please under TXD's post !!


Pennsylvania ALREADY HAS CASTLE DOCTRINE , hell even the rabidly Anti Gun Peoples Socialist Republic of NJ has it , as do most every State !!! ( In fact , Im unaware of ANY State in the Union that doesnt have a version of " Castle Doctrine ") . What you and way to many others are calling " Castle Doctrine" and asking to be made law is called " Stand Your Ground " PLEASE , PLEASE remember that this site is one of , if not the pre-eminent site in PA for gun owners and gun rights , it is routinely watched by the media , we have an obligation to ensure to the best of one's ability to either be certain of one's comments , OR alternatively include the obligatory " I think " , " I thought " , " I heard " or some other similar disclaimer phrase if your not sure of what your saying !

[unloved]

Originally Posted by TXDMERC73

they should also adopt the Castle Doctrine for every state as well

I'd rather have protection from civil action should I justifiably use deadly force in defense of myself.

[Morel42]

Originally Posted by unloved

I'd rather have protection from civil action should I justifiably use deadly force in defense of myself.

There is no words to describe how right you are..

[TXDMERC73]

Originally Posted by son of the revolution

Someone throw up the Double Face Palm for me please under TXD's post !!


Pennsylvania ALREADY HAS CASTLE DOCTRINE , hell even the rabidly Anti Gun Peoples Socialist Republic of NJ has it , as do most every State !!! ( In fact , Im unaware of ANY State in the Union that doesnt have a version of " Castle Doctrine ") . What you and way to many others are calling " Castle Doctrine" and asking to be made law is called " Stand Your Ground " PLEASE , PLEASE remember that this site is one of , if not the pre-eminent site in PA for gun owners and gun rights , it is routinely watched by the media , we have an obligation to ensure to the best of one's ability to either be certain of one's comments , OR alternatively include the obligatory " I think " , " I thought " , " I heard " or some other similar disclaimer phrase if your not sure of what your saying !

if PA has the Castle Doctrine Self-defense bill then why was it just introduced to the senate on may 6th 2009? something here has me confused. was it already passed or no ?i know FLa has one for sure.

[son of the revolution]

Originally Posted by TXDMERC73

if PA has the Castle Doctrine Self-defense bill then why was it just introduced to the senate on may 6th 2009? something here has me confused. was it already passed or no ?i know FLa has one for sure.

Yes its clear you are confused , since the answer to the question your asking is IN MY POST that you just quoted !!! Florida has STAND YOUR GROUND !!!!! Which is exactly what I just explained . Doesnt anyone bother to read anymore ???

[Dannytheman]

So who can explain to me what implication this has with the SCOTUS? Do we have a past history of the AG's influencing the SCOTUS?

Sorry to be uninformed, but does this carry any weight?

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by TXDMERC73

if PA has the Castle Doctrine Self-defense bill then why was it just introduced to the senate on may 6th 2009? something here has me confused. was it already passed or no ?i know FLa has one for sure.

PA has (and has had for a long time) castle doctrine from a criminal point of view. you do not have a legal duty to retreat if you are in your own home.

however, we do not have civil (i.e. lawsuit) protections that the castle doctrine laws in many states provide.

so, legally, you do not have to retreat before using justifiable deadly force in your home, but you can still be sued (by the home invader or his family) for it.

the bill you are speaking of...which many people refer to as the "castle doctrine" bill would provide that civil immunity.

it would also make the law treat your car just like your home (extending "castle doctrine" to your car).

it also has a "stand your ground" provision which gets rid of the current duty to retreat outside of your home.