The history of the 2nd Amendment

Hopefully you are not on such a 2nd Amendment “overload” that you won’t read this. While we often speak of the Heller decision and the McDonald decision, lost in the shuffle is the Nordyke decision.

This is an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a court which is hardly a bastion of “right wing” conservatism.  I encourage you to read pages 19 through 27 of that decision.  It is perhaps the most comprehensive recitation of why we have a 2nd Amendment. 

You may even want to send those pages to your state and federal representatives as they are deliberating how many bullets you need to defend yourself and your family against three armed intruders.


11 replies
  1. Plainvillian
    Plainvillian says:

    Slogging through this reminds me once again why I am so happy I rejected an early interest in the law and instead became a peddler.? That said, it is very clear that even the 9th circus, er circuit, recognizes why the 2nd amendment was added to the constitution and why local and state limitations must be specific and few.
    Unfortunately, here in Corrupticut our legiscritters must “do something” to validate their position no matter what folly it represents.? Of course the lawyers on all sides run up the billable hours and the games continue.? Meanwhile criminals continue to ignore laws because that’s what criminals do.? Are we past the time when reason based on results can be applied?

  2. JBS
    JBS says:

    O.K., I’ll say it:
    What does the Nordyke decision really mean in plain language, sans legalspeak?
    And, Heller and McDonald.

    • Lynn
      Lynn says:

      I’m with you JBS. I gave up after page 10 on Nordyke and didn’t even try the rest. I guess I’m caving in to the majority of Democrats in this country, and need to be spoonfed my information.

    • SoundOffSister
      SoundOffSister says:

      I’ll try.? The 2nd Amendment says, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”? Heller?holds that the FEDERAL government cannot infringe on that right.? Nordyke and McDonald?hold that the STATE governments cannot infringe on that right because it is a “fundamental right”, that is to say, it is a right that is basic to our scheme of liberty and justice.? However, “reasonable” restraints can be placed on that right…you can’t have a missle silo in your back yard, for example.?

      Whether a restraint is “reasonable” is up to a court to decide.

  3. stinkfoot
    stinkfoot says:

    I think the apparent reason for using “legalese”? as the favored means of “disclosing” laws and legislation is to minimize the level that common people will comprehend it.? I’m also wondering if the removal long ago of Latin from high school curriculum wasn’t intended to effectively separate people from the language of their oppressors.

    • Lynn
      Lynn says:

      Never thought about it before, but you have a great point about removing Latin from high school curriculum. Gave me a chuckle.

  4. SeeingRed
    SeeingRed says:

    SOS – since the CT Constitution has gun rights language that is even more strict that teh 2nd Amendment, have CT gun laws ever been challenged in the State?? We basically have a continuation of the Clinton-era ‘ban’ plus a named list – I wonder how this has remained in place (?)….

  5. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    I like the statement : “However, ?reasonable? restraints can be placed on that right.” At least SOS believes that having a missile silo in your backyard is not considered reasonable. The current conversation on the subject is about what is “reasonable”.

    • Steve McGough
      Steve McGough says:

      And a reporter asking the question “do you think you should be able to have a nuke?” is not reasonable either, but they keep asking it. Nobody is asking for that, it’s a red herring. We’ve already compromised during the last 75 years – over, and over, and over again. We’ve accepted what was determined as reasonable, and now they are asking for too much that will do nothing to protect anyone. NO MORE.

  6. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    I hope the conversation will also include that there are many laws on the books already, that are not enforced. Wouldn’t it be reasonable, to ask that these laws be enforced first, instead of making more laws?

Comments are closed.