PDA

View Full Version : Nordyke - Judge Gould


Californio
04-21-2009, 8:00 AM
"The salient policies underlying the protection of the right to
bear arms are of inestimable importance. The right to bear
arms is a bulwark against external invasion."

I was thinking how can a Californian be a "bulwark against external invasion" when we have a AW ban and a magazine ban for greater than 10 rounds in place. Sure can't defend America, State of California with a fixed magazine 10 round OLL.

yellowfin
04-21-2009, 8:04 AM
Actually it's California which should have defended itself against invasion from the anti gun forces, but now we're just doing our best to kick them out.

Dark&Good
04-21-2009, 8:23 AM
External invasion of the US has always been much less likely than internal invasion :D

sorensen440
04-21-2009, 8:25 AM
External invasion of the US has always been much less likely than internal invasion :D
Not impossible especially with todays technologys assisting many of our "allies" (EMP weapons for example would make it quite possible for an invasion)

Harrison_Bergeron
04-21-2009, 8:26 AM
"The salient policies underlying the protection of the right to
bear arms are of inestimable importance. The right to bear
arms is a bulwark against external invasion."

I was thinking how can a Californian be a "bulwark against external invasion" when we have a AW ban and a magazine ban for greater than 10 rounds in place. Sure can't defend America, State of California with a fixed magazine 10 round OLL.

Hmm, I would like to see what the CGN law gurus think of this. Could this language be the "in" necessary for getting the AW and hi cap bans nullified?

Untamed1972
04-21-2009, 8:31 AM
External invasion? You mean like 12 million people illegally crossing the border?

sorensen440
04-21-2009, 8:31 AM
External invasion? You mean like 12 million people illegally crossing the border?
good point

Dark&Good
04-21-2009, 8:32 AM
Not impossible especially with todays technologys assisting many of our "allies" (EMP weapons for example would make it quite possible for an invasion)

Sure; I was just looking at how often and how badly "externals" and "internals" effed up something here...

Californio
04-21-2009, 8:46 AM
Hmm, I would like to see what the CGN law gurus think of this. Could this language be the "in" necessary for getting the AW and hi cap bans nullified?

That is what I was thinking, are we now able to sue California in Federal Court to overturn the State bans?

pullnshoot25
04-21-2009, 9:40 AM
External invasion? You mean like 12 million people illegally crossing the border?

I brought that up the other night over the discussion table at the homestead... my dad said that is a radical idea.

Liberty1
04-21-2009, 9:50 AM
"The salient policies underlying the protection of the right to
bear arms are of inestimable importance. The right to bear
arms is a bulwark against external invasion."

It brought a tear to my eye to read Gould's mention of WWII England's old, "Home Guard"!!!

"Who's standing firm in their own front yard? The soldiers of the old home guard! That's who!"

cbZe8YK0OgA

Harrison_Bergeron
04-21-2009, 12:48 PM
That is what I was thinking, are we now able to sue California in Federal Court to overturn the State bans?

Well, that is what incorporation of Heller through Nordyke does, but there was no straight "civilians need guns to fight invaders" language in Heller, I'm wondering if the inclusion of this phrase in the Nordyke ruling makes it so that we actually have legal ground for demanding what many consider military only small arms.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-21-2009, 12:59 PM
Gould is old enough to recall that after the cowardly attack on Peal Harbor, the consensus was the west coast, particularly CA, would be a likely target. I imagine he had that in mind...

yellowfin
04-21-2009, 2:21 PM
It brought a tear to my eye to read Gould's mention of WWII England's old, "Home Guard"!!!

"Who's standing firm in their own front yard? The soldiers of the old home guard! That's who!"

cbZe8YK0OgAYes, the people who immediately upon the end of WWII gave up their guns and sold their country into slavery instead of standing up to the anti gunners of their time and kicking them off the island. Apparently having their freedom taken was perfectly fine so long as it wasn't the Germans doing it. What a bunch of sissies.

Californio
04-21-2009, 2:31 PM
Gould is old enough to recall that after the cowardly attack on Peal Harbor, the consensus was the west coast, particularly CA, would be a likely target. I imagine he had that in mind...

I hear that my Father was stationed at Camp McQuaide with the 250th Coast Artillery before the attack, spent some quality time in Dutch Harbor, Alaska after the attack.

jamesob
04-21-2009, 2:52 PM
External invasion of the US has always been much less likely than internal invasion :D

Are you kidding? mexico is invading and taking over without firing a shot. thats hard to defend.

KWA-S
04-22-2009, 2:51 AM
I was thinking how can a Californian be a "bulwark against external invasion" when we have a AW ban and a magazine ban for greater than 10 rounds in place.
They are hoping that the Sierras will slow the invaders from a west to east long enough to put defenses on the other side.

Little did they know the invaders came from the south.

elenius
04-22-2009, 6:29 AM
Unfortunately the Gould part, where some of the best language of this thing is, is not part of the real decision. It's just a concurring opinion. My understanding is that it is "useful" but not binding.

Nevertheless, there's some good stuff in the main decision about the 2A being about fighting tyranny etc as well.

RomanDad
04-22-2009, 6:49 AM
Well, that is what incorporation of Heller through Nordyke does, but there was no straight "civilians need guns to fight invaders" language in Heller, I'm wondering if the inclusion of this phrase in the Nordyke ruling makes it so that we actually have legal ground for demanding what many consider military only small arms.

Actually, there was language like that in Heller... Lots of it.

Its an argument... And it will be made for sure with regard to "assult weapons" However, that argument will be better suited at some point down the road (some other hurdles HAVE to be jumped first for us to even get there) to challenge the NFA...

The better argument re "assault weapons" is using the language of Heller that the "Second Amendment protects those arms normally possessed by ordinary citizens for lawful purposes", the modern, self loading rifle (particularly the AR-15 and its clones), is one of the MOST COMMON long guns owned by ordinary citizens for lawful purposes.

I would suspect, if one does a census of BATF requests for the last 6 months, the AR is outselling EVERYTHING by a HUGE MARGIN.... There are tens of MILLIONS of them in the hands of private citizens. And under Heller, that means they cant be touched.

Gator Monroe
04-22-2009, 7:14 AM
China could land almost a Million troops in 48 hours at various ports using existing container ships with another million comming in third day via Navy and Air ...

b.faust
04-22-2009, 10:07 AM
China could land almost a Million troops in 48 hours at various ports using existing container ships with another million comming in third day via Navy and Air ...

The only problem with that plan is most of them would probably be half mad with lead poisoning from the 'quality paint' used in the shipping containers.

;)