Incorporation Thread - Nordyke is out!!
- Thread starter ilbob
- Start date
2edgesword
New member
"Now that we have 2A as an individual right, and incorporation in the 9th, it can (and will) be argued that fundamental civi rights don't end at your doorstep."
Agree. The battle goes on.
A statement in the decision makes the claim that the home is "where the
need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute".
I'm curious as to what the statistics are regarding physical attacks and where they re most likely to occur. Is it more likely that an individual would be attacked in their home or one the street? You hear a lot about home invasions but my thinking would be that attacks occur more often on the street.
Anyway, the battle to extend the right to self-protection using a handgun in the home seems to have take some steps forward. The battle to extend that right to your car or while walking on the street will be a tough one in places like NY.
Agree. The battle goes on.
A statement in the decision makes the claim that the home is "where the
need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute".
I'm curious as to what the statistics are regarding physical attacks and where they re most likely to occur. Is it more likely that an individual would be attacked in their home or one the street? You hear a lot about home invasions but my thinking would be that attacks occur more often on the street.
Anyway, the battle to extend the right to self-protection using a handgun in the home seems to have take some steps forward. The battle to extend that right to your car or while walking on the street will be a tough one in places like NY.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
1) Ignore until forced to respond.
2) Publicly confirm that it is a good decision.
3) Work actively behind the scenes to under-mine and minimize the consequences.
2edgesword
New member
Exactly.
I didn't hear a thing about this decision in any of the news programing I watched and heard.
maestro pistolero said:
I have seen some plausible explanations as to why there is a seeming news black out on this.
Most rely on some form of the idea that Nordyke is a fairly unknown case and the MSM is busy bringing itself up to speed. Um, Heller was a fairly unknown case. It didn't take the MSM more than 2 hours to get up to speed, after the D.C. Circuit opinion.
Between the D.C. Circuit opinion and the SCOTUS Decision, which took a year and a half, there were many articles. Add all the articles after the Heller decision, the play up to and after the election. The gun buying on the lead-up to the election and most especially after the election, and now the ammo shortage, the MSM have been having a field day.
Now add to this mix, all the stories on gun-control and rumor of gun-control; Eric Holder; Pelosi; Obama; Mexico, etc. ...
Any argument that the MSM doesn't know or doesn't get the ramifications, just doesn't wash.
Nor do I except the theory that it isn't being reported because "this being a largely expected outcome." Coming from the 9th Circuit (a circuit notorious for its anti-gun posture), this decision (the incorporation part) was most certainly not expected.
Nor do I believe that there has been any concerted conspiracy on the part of the MSM.
Go to the Associated Press wire service and lookup the following words: 9th Circuit; Nordyke; Incorporation. Only the first term brings any results. Ten links to prior stories, 7 of which occurred before April 20th. None of which relate to the topic we are discussing. The latter two terms have zero results.
Reuters returns no stories at all.
If the two largest and most subscribed news services do not deign to publish a lead-on story, why would anyone publish their own story?
Most news agencies, papers and television stations have their own "court reporters." So it isn't unknown, even though the AP and Reuters do not have a wire story available.
What I think may be happening is utter shock. They are absolutely dumbfounded. This decision would place the entire stream of the current debate over arms and Mexico into turmoil. I'm beginning to think that there have been individual decisions within the various news agencies, to not report this, so that it keeps the current political debate on the forefront of America.
My thinking is bolstered by the fact that the Brady Center has not issued any statement whatsoever. Paul Helmke is not an idiot. If they (he) make no statement, there is nothing (in that agenda) for the media to latch onto.
By the individual actions of not reporting this, the media can help keep the Obama Administration "focused" on its domestic and international goals. The media is "helping" to keep distractions away from the administration.
Therefore, the Obama Administration does not have to say a word about this (until and unless forced to), and will continue as if this hasn't happened (If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it really make any noise?).
maestro pistolero
New member
Ok, the NEAR total absence of stories, then. Good 'ol Lou.
Al, I too have searched those terms and was dumbfounded. In a way, it shows how big a blow this is to the Brady bunch. This is an elephant in their living room. I would love to be a fly on the wall in their next meeting!
It's not on the news because they would have to explain what "incorporation" is, and they don't even understand it themselves. Explaining the application of the bill o' rights to the states would be a long, boring (to dullards) segment and a million people would reach for the remote to see shiny colors and screeching on another network.
Wildalaska
Moderator
I tend to agree. As soon as I found out about it. I emailed the link to Drudge report and my contacts in the local media (of which I have many having been on TV about guns as recently as last week)...
Nada...
Why?
It doesnt bleed.
No bleed, no lead.
Too academic.
But so nice
WildletsallemailthebradybunchtoaskaboutitAlaska ™
grymster2007
New member
Done.
I asked them why they were not reporting on an apparent victory for their cause. After all, the 9th circuit affirmed the lower court's summary judgement against the Nordykes.
JuanCarlos
New member
I'd hope every media outlet's news room would have somebody on hand who understands the concept of incorporation. I mean, I know enough "random dudes on the internet" that do, so I'd assume so. I agree, however, that explaining the nuance of this to the audience would be an exercise in futility.
So far, aside from (apparently) Lou Dobbs, the only other mainstream news source I'm seeing anything about this in is the San Francisco Chronicle.
My other guess is something WildAlaska touched on, but only in passing...it's too academic. At this point, this decision has had basically zero impact. California residents may now challenge gun laws, but it's not like any of them are immediately impacted by this decision (the only specific gun law involved was upheld). Compare this to Heller, in which D.C.'s actual handgun ban was being immediately challenged.
To some extent, as far as the average mainstream news consumer is concerned (again, the same consumers who don't know what incorporation means), this isn't news. The cases that this leads to will be news.
orchidhunter
Moderator
Yep, it's binding in the 9th Circuit. Can be cited in other
Circuits, which they would take into account, but doesn't bind them.
Note that "binding" is often more theory than fact, since there are
ways to get around a binding decision (distinguish it -- facts in
this case are somewhat different from facts in that case -- or
sometimes outright ignore it, or call for en banc review by all the
judges in the circuit and try to get them to overrule the prior
decision). And a well-reasoned opinion from one circuit can carry
weight in others. And a circuit split, where some circuits go one way
and others go another, is a good basis for asking the Supreme Court
to take it on and settle the issue. orchidhunter
Circuits, which they would take into account, but doesn't bind them.
Note that "binding" is often more theory than fact, since there are
ways to get around a binding decision (distinguish it -- facts in
this case are somewhat different from facts in that case -- or
sometimes outright ignore it, or call for en banc review by all the
judges in the circuit and try to get them to overrule the prior
decision). And a well-reasoned opinion from one circuit can carry
weight in others. And a circuit split, where some circuits go one way
and others go another, is a good basis for asking the Supreme Court
to take it on and settle the issue. orchidhunter
Wildalaska
Moderator
Good point
WildmaybethemsmhopesthedecisonwillgoawayAlaska TM
WildmaybethemsmhopesthedecisonwillgoawayAlaska TM
maestro pistolero
New member
That's the first time I've seen that argument. But, leave it to liberal media to take a clear expansion of liberty and spin it as a contraction.
Last edited:
rwilson452
New member
Someone refresh my memory. Didn't the 2nd circuit take a different view?
The 2nd Circuit had a numbskull (pun intended) who ran a pro se case (ALWAYS a mistake) challenging a NYC ban on nunchaku. It had little standing, poor arguement, and little hope for success. The Nordykes had considerable standing, a better arguement, and one of the best lawyers in the country representing them and a coalition of all the top 2A minds within several hundred miles AND Alan Gura working on it.
Also, the 9th had a few decisions on file that specifically hinged on the collective rights 2A view which Heller blew out of the water. All they had to do was rule that those decisions no longer were good because Heller said individual right. We got a GREAT judge on the opinion.
Also, the 9th had a few decisions on file that specifically hinged on the collective rights 2A view which Heller blew out of the water. All they had to do was rule that those decisions no longer were good because Heller said individual right. We got a GREAT judge on the opinion.