2nd Amendment incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment

[SmarterthanYou]

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...20/0715763.pdf

We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the “true palladium of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.

[Bonestorm]

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...20/0715763.pdf

And the regulation was upheld nevertheless. Surely you credit this portion of the opinion as well:

To summarize: the Ordinance does not meaningfully impede the ability of individuals to defend themselves in their homes with usable firearms, the core of the right as Heller analyzed it. The Ordinance falls on the lawful side of the division, familiar from other areas of substantive due process doctrine, between unconstitutional interference with individual rights and permissible government nonfacilitation of their exercise. Finally, rohibiting firearm possession on municipal property fits within the exception from the Second Amendment for “sensitive places” that Heller recognized. These considerations compel us to conclude that the Second Amendment does not invalidate the specific Ordinance before us. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Nordykes leave to amend their complaint to add a Second Amendment claim that would have been futile.

[SmarterthanYou]

And the regulation was upheld nevertheless. Surely you credit this portion of the opinion as well:

I did, and found it really irrelevant for my interests. The main issue(s) that matter in this ruling is that 9th circuit states must now abide by heller and any other future rulings on the 2nd Amendment by the USSC. This places the 'safe' handgun list in serious jeopardy and shortly could turn California in to a shall issue state.

very soon, we should also see a ruling that utilizes the Murdock v. PA decision and determine that no state shall charge a license, fee, or tax for the exercise of a right protected by the US constitution.

[Bonestorm]

I did, and found it really irrelevant for my interests. The main issue(s) that matter in this ruling is that 9th circuit states must now abide by heller and any other future rulings on the 2nd Amendment by the USSC. This places the 'safe' handgun list in serious jeopardy and shortly could turn California in to a shall issue state.

very soon, we should also see a ruling that utilizes the Murdock v. PA decision and determine that no state shall charge a license, fee, or tax for the exercise of a right protected by the US constitution.

I appreciate your vigor but you are seriously deranged if you believe that the licensing and fee regimes in place in the various states are going to be overruled by the Supreme Court.

[SmarterthanYou]

I appreciate your vigor but you are seriously deranged if you believe that the licensing and fee regimes in place in the various states are going to be overruled by the Supreme Court.

not so, because I'm not expecting to see the USSC invalidate all concealed license laws. What I AM expecting though, due to the dicta from Scalia in Heller, is that states like mine (TX) that prohibits open carry except on your own property and has only concealed with a license, will be forced to either decriminalize open carry or allow concealed without a license. Any other solution would be violating the 2nd Amendment.

[Socrtease]

I appreciate your vigor but you are seriously deranged if you believe that the licensing and fee regimes in place in the various states are going to be overruled by the Supreme Court.

Licensing is going to be held valid even by the same court that gave us Heller. BUT, the licensing fees are NOT going to be allowed to be onerous. That is exceptionally high fees will be struck down, qualifications that do much more than require minimum age, mental soundness and no felony record are going to be struck down as too onerous. This is a right. IMAGINE if you had to get a license to dissent. If there were licensing requirements for the first amendment. Liberals would scream like preteens at a Jonas Brothers Concert.

[SmarterthanYou]

Licensing is going to be held valid even by the same court that gave us Heller. BUT, the licensing fees are NOT going to be allowed to be onerous. That is exceptionally high fees will be struck down, qualifications that do much more than require minimum age, mental soundness and no felony record are going to be struck down as too onerous. This is a right. IMAGINE if you had to get a license to dissent. If there were licensing requirements for the first amendment. Liberals would scream like preteens at a Jonas Brothers Concert.

again though, I'm not looking to invalidate concealed carry or concealed licenses. I want to see the 6 remaining states that have prohibited open carry be forced to decriminalize it. Per Murdock, no state may charge a license, fee, or tax for the exercise of a right protected by the constitution. Therefore, it would seem logical given the dicta in Heller and other cases, if concealed carry is NOT a normally protected right, open carry would HAVE to be and no license would be required for it.

[Minister of Truth]

Can one of the lawyers here outline what hasn't yet been incorporated, now that Heller has occurred.

I'm thinking like quartering of national guardsmen by a governor, or somerthing?

[Bonestorm]

Licensing is going to be held valid even by the same court that gave us Heller. BUT, the licensing fees are NOT going to be allowed to be onerous. That is exceptionally high fees will be struck down, qualifications that do much more than require minimum age, mental soundness and no felony record are going to be struck down as too onerous. This is a right. IMAGINE if you had to get a license to dissent. If there were licensing requirements for the first amendment. Liberals would scream like preteens at a Jonas Brothers Concert.

But there are permit fees for protests and they have been held to be constitutional. Why should fees for firearms be any different.

I can't imagine any state regulatory regime currently in existence as being unconstitutional. Perhaps you could point out thoes that you think are too onerous.

[SmarterthanYou]

But there are permit fees for protests and they have been held to be constitutional. Why should fees for firearms be any different.

I can't imagine any state regulatory regime currently in existence as being unconstitutional. Perhaps you could point out thoes that you think are too onerous.

As I stated earlier, 6 states prohibit ANY open carry, meaning that only concealed carry is available. Now, in Texas, the license fee is the highest in the country at $140. It also requires an 8 to 12 hour NRA/state approved class which can average around $100. If it truly is a right to bear arms then wouldn't Murdock v. PA mean anything? Also, it's been my understanding from most gun cases concerning concealed carry is that throughout time, open carry has always been recognized as a right, which gives validity to licenses for concealed carry.

Again, I am not looking to invalidate concealed carry, just to decriminalize open carry.