Actually I meant the Circuit Courts of Appeals cases. My mistake.
However, there are other opinions on whether the SCOTUS has made decisions relevent to the second amendment.
But since those questions have been resolved in that thread, let’s not re-hash them here.
I said the only important decision(at least for californians and any state which doesn’t specifically have an RKBA provision in their state constitutions), was the one that said that only states may raise questions of 2nd amendment violations, because in my state, I as a person cannot sue the federal government based on a violation of that right.
If you’re interested in circuit court dissentions, look up the 9th circuit dissents in Nordyke. Many of our justices have dissented, just not a majority. Very good dissents, very strong. Of course, that didn’t mean much to SCOTUS this week apparently…
Sam
Elucidate please??
Give me some time to find them online.
Dissent of Kleinfeld, O’Scannlain, Gould, Tallman and Bea in Nordyke v. King
Sam
Thank you for the cite. However what I was looking for was clarification of your statement, not verification.
I’m one of those people who slept through Civics class. I read the whole entire 24 pages and can’t understand what it said. I guess cause I’m accustomed to a different reading order. Or something.
Was a decision made by the 9th circuit court that the 2nd amendment is a collective right, and the rest was dissenting arguments? How does this involve the Supreme Court (SCOTUS)?
Ya know, like, “What’s it all mean, Mr. Natural?”
(I can’t read legalese!) Short statements will be adequate for my needs. Thanks. 
Maybe I’m not sure what you want.
SCOTUS handed down a no-order denial of Cert in Nordyke v. King(a gun show promoter denied the right to use public lands to hold gun shows), this week. I assume because of Hickman. The decision in Hickman held that private citizens cannot raise questions of violations of the second amendment to the Supreme Court.
Therefore, Nordyke bounces back to the Ninth Circuit court of appeals. If you want to read a strong dissent against the denial of cert. in the ninth circuit, the link I posted last should give you what you want. It’s very strong to say the least-though it didn’t change the decision to deny cert in the ninth circuit, and it didn’t sway SCOTUS to hear the case.
Sam
IANAL, but I’ll take a stab at it.
What we’re working against here is a principle called stare decisis. Essentially, any circuit court ruling that is not overturned by the Supreme Court becomes the LAw of the Land.
Now, the 9th Circuit was pretty much the first to definitively rule that there is no “Individual Right” to keep and bear; there is only the “Collective” or “State’s Right” to have Militias.
So, everyone else has to go along with that until such time as the Supreme Court decides to hear a case on the matter from a circuit other than the 9th.
Other Justices (from the 9th or any other curcuit or district justice) can say how bad they think that is, but their opinions are what’s called dicta; interesting, possibly meaningfully so, but ultimately not binding in a judicial sense.
So, until the Supreme Court weighs in definitively, we’re stuck with a Federal “Collective Rights” interpretation, as well as many gun-hostile states as well. John Ashcroft can hold forth about the “Individual Right” until he’s blue in the face and his arm falls off, but it won’t change a damned thing.
Thanks be to GaWd (I always wanted to say that) and to ExTank.
Between the two of you I think I understand what happened now.
I’m surprised that I hadn’t heard about this sooner! (Gulp!)
Time to get a gun and join the Militia! (or should that be join the Militia and get a gun?)
SnSp
Yep. 9th Circuit gun-banning Judicial Activists slammed the door shut a while back; if they could make it ultimately stick nation-wide, we’d be royally fucked.