PDA

View Full Version : Sacramento City Council passes resolution for Amicus brief against Incorporation


hill billy
12-19-2009, 7:51 PM
http://www.kcra.com/news/21979828/detail.html

Sacramento Supports 2nd Amendment Suit
City Council Votes To Join Lawsuit Before Supreme Court

POSTED: 10:59 pm PST December 15, 2009
UPDATED: 12:02 pm PST December 16, 2009

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The Sacramento City Council passed a resolution Tuesday night supporting a lawsuit that could change the way the U.S. Supreme Court defines Second Amendment rights.

Several cities have voted to join the lawsuit brought against the city of Chicago by a resident there. The cities have joined the suit as 'Amicus Curiae,' basically supporting the city's position that the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, should not apply to local governments.

Sacramento City Councilman Kevin McCarty, D-District 6, told KCRA 3 that if the lawsuit fails, it could impact several local laws that regulate gun and ammunition sales. He pointed to a recent double homicide, calling it a good example of why the Second Amendment should not apply locally.

"We're afraid that if that court case goes the wrong direction, that could terminate what we are doing locally," McCarty said. "By stepping up and supporting this court case, we think it will continue these laws here that are working."

Gun advocates said they believe the lawsuit erodes citizens' rights.

"The City Council of Sacramento is misdirected," said Sam Paredes, director of Gun Owners of California.

Paredes said the City Council should be targeted criminals not guns.

"The City Council is trying to go after the wrong thing when trying to control crime," Paredes said.

He said the lawsuit has already sparked a firestorm of controversy.

"Phones are starting to ring off the hook," Paredes said. "People are absolutely amazed the City Council is going to take a position like this."

By teaming up with Chicago and other cities, the Sacramento City Council hopes to stop gun violence.

"We've been able to take off the streets 200 guns, arrest a couple hundred felons," McCarty said.

The sole City Council member to oppose the resolution was former Sheriff Robbie Waters, who said the lawsuit could damage a fundamental right of citizens. The lawsuit is scheduled to go before the U.S. Supreme Court next year.

Unbelievable. The Bill of rights, not valid in Ca. :mad:

I hope Mr. McCarty has a lousy summer next year. :D

IrishPirate
12-19-2009, 8:00 PM
they're saying you basically can't have your rights in this city.....how the hell does that make sense to these people? and more importantly, HOW THE HELL DO THEY KEEP GETTING ELECTED!!!

wildhawker
12-19-2009, 8:04 PM
Hill, the 2nd will apply to states and local govts soon- regardless of how they feel about it.

hoffmang
12-19-2009, 8:06 PM
I found it intriguing that the mayor voted against (and therefor for incorporation.)

-Gene

aileron
12-19-2009, 8:09 PM
I like this, now they're out on the carpet and no one even called them out there. They just up and said, "Yup, we don't believe in this, and we are going to back a bunch of prejudice white guys from the reconstruction period who didn't want Blacks to have rights." LOL!

Priceless.

hill billy
12-19-2009, 8:10 PM
Hill, the 2nd will apply to states and local govts soon- regardless of how they feel about it.

I know. I am still amazed(even at this place in time) that some folks believe that they should be able to only abide by the parts of the Constitution that they like. I guess it works for the Federal Gov, why not all the rest? :cool2:

dustoff31
12-19-2009, 8:11 PM
they're saying you basically can't have your rights in this city.....

Actually it's more like they are saying, we will review the list of rights you think you have, and allow those we think you deserve.

MKfan
12-19-2009, 8:30 PM
My wife has the pleasure of interacting with McCarty on a regular basis as part of her job, I don't know how she manages, he's pure slime

Full Clip
12-19-2009, 8:46 PM
Unbelievable. The Bill of rights, not valid in Ca. :mad:

They are basically telling me, "If you value your rights, get the f@$! out of CA," and I'm seriously thinking about it.

cbn620
12-19-2009, 8:57 PM
I hope that people in Sacramento are writing Mr. McCarty some letters. If I lived in your city I would be protesting this in as many ways as possible. When your local government is acting on your behalf to lend their support to the side of an argument you fundamentally disagree with, you have every reason to protest it.

der_saeufer
12-19-2009, 9:04 PM
Hey, cool. So does that mean (for example) that <insert name of redneck town> can decide that the 13th amendment doesn't apply?

If so, I'm going to incorporate my own town where the 16th doesn't apply and collect the income tax myself to finance nice roads and the town beer hall.

wildhawker
12-19-2009, 9:18 PM
Why would you let them force you out when we're less than a year away from having 2A applied against the states?

We're winning, and Sacramento's frustrating but irrelevant support of Chicago will not affect the outcome.

Let's keep our chins held high and press on.

They are basically telling me, "If you value your rights, get the f@$! out of CA," and I'm seriously thinking about it.

sierratangofoxtrotunion
12-19-2009, 9:42 PM
Hey, cool. So does that mean (for example) that <insert name of redneck town> can decide that the 13th amendment doesn't apply?

If so, I'm going to incorporate my own town where the 16th doesn't apply and collect the income tax myself to finance nice roads and the town beer hall.

A very clever and insightful post from a very junior member! Welcome to Calguns! :thumbsup:

hoffmang
12-19-2009, 9:56 PM
My wife has the pleasure of interacting with McCarty on a regular basis as part of her job, I don't know how she manages, he's pure slime

And soon McCarty will be adding his brand of "quality" to the California Assembly...

-Gene

Cokebottle
12-19-2009, 10:19 PM
He pointed to a recent double homicide, calling it a good example of why the Second Amendment should not apply locally.

these laws here that are working."
And he doesn't see the conflict inherent in his statement?

More laws ≠ less crime
More laws = more criminals

Liberty1
12-20-2009, 3:03 AM
I found it intriguing that the mayor voted against (and therefor for incorporation.)

-Gene

He wants to be on the winning side!

GarandFan
12-20-2009, 5:35 AM
Folks:

What do you predict the Sac arguments will be? Will they be similar to those in the Brady campaign brief? I realize that brief was filed on behalf of neither party, and the Sac brief will be filed on behalf of Chicago.

The Brady's didn't argue against incorporation. I suspect that even they acknowledge that's a losing argument. They argued for a "deferential" standard of review. Basically they said "because guns are terribly evil ... even if you incorporate, don't open up any of our cherished infringements to legal challenge." One section of their brief was "Even Fundamental Rights ... Are Not Necessarily Subject to Strict Scrutiny." Remarkable. They effectively expect that the RKBA will be affirmed as fundamental right. Talk about a game-changer!

I used to live in Chicago. It appears that the municipalities of Winnetka, Wilmette, and Skokie shall file a brief on behalf of Chicago. The first two cities had handgun bans that they repealed in the wake of Heller.

I don't know what their arguments are, but I expect briefs for Chicago on behalf of:

1) Joyce Foundation-funded antigun groups (eg. VPC, LCAV, etc.)
2) anti-gun cities (including Sac, some IL towns, San Fran, NYC, etc.)
3) anti-gun congresspeople like Carolyn McCarthy, et al. (note that in Heller, only 18 US Reps filed on behalf of DC. No senators. Since McDonald is about incorporation far more than about "guns", maybe no congresspeople will file a brief)
4) anti-gun states like HI, NJ, etc.

Even some of the conservative "federalism" groups like ALEC ... who surely favor state sovereignty ... are lining up behind McDonald. And what about the ACLU? There were rumors ... but given they didn't file on behalf of neither party, maybe they will sit this one out. I can't imagine why ... how long has it been since the court has had the opportunity to incorporate an enumerated right against state and local infringement!!?? That they sit this one out strongly belies the ACLUs inexcusable bias on this issue.

Will there be any Professors of History, or any Cunning Linguists, who shall attempt to argue against incorporation? I just predict nothing of the sort.

I am curious to read Chicago's brief on or around 30 December, and their amici about a week later.

scc1909
12-20-2009, 7:48 AM
I like this, now they're out on the carpet and no one even called them out there. They just up and said, "Yup, we don't believe in this, and we are going to back a bunch of prejudice white guys from the reconstruction period who didn't want Blacks to have rights." LOL!

Priceless.
Yup...this was and still remains the primary reason for cities and States to oppose incorporation. Can't have dem colored folks runnin' 'round with guns! :rolleyes:

nicki
12-20-2009, 8:23 AM
I would suggest to everyone on this board to just have casual conversations with non gunnies on the overall issues in this case. The history of Crunshiak makes for really interesting conversations.

I have found that the non political, non gunnies are actually shocked at past court rulings.

The average American actually believes that the Bill of Rights already applies to the states.

Why would I suggest this, well, imagine if you thought you had 1 million dollars in your bank account and one day you walked into your bank and found that not only was it not there, but that you owed the bank money.

This is why we need to grow in size, this is why we need to take our friends, people we know shooting, so that we can reach out.

All those council people voted against the whole BILL OF RIGHTS, not just the second amendment.

If the Sacramento voters learn and understand what they did, they should have short political careers.

Nicki

timdps
12-20-2009, 10:22 AM
I don't know what their arguments are, but I expect briefs for Chicago on behalf of:

1) Joyce Foundation-funded antigun groups (eg. VPC, LCAV, etc.)
2) anti-gun cities (including Sac, some IL towns, San Fran, NYC, etc.)
3) anti-gun congresspeople like Carolyn McCarthy, et al. (note that in Heller, only 18 US Reps filed on behalf of DC. No senators. Since McDonald is about incorporation far more than about "guns", maybe no congresspeople will file a brief)
4) anti-gun states like HI, NJ, etc.

I suppose its too late to contact all of these orgs and let then know that support for Chicago is also support for bad racist laws...

If they do support Chicago there will be all the time in the world to legitimately call them supporters of racist laws, very loudly and very publicly.

Play the race card on THEM! Oh, the irony!

Tim

GuyW
12-20-2009, 11:10 AM
Will there be any Professors of History, or any Cunning Linguists, who shall attempt to argue against incorporation?

Cute...but that's not their predilection...

.

Glock22Fan
12-20-2009, 11:18 AM
I suppose its too late to contact all of these orgs and let then know that support for Chicago is also support for bad racist laws...

If they do support Chicago there will be all the time in the world to legitimately call them supporters of racist laws, very loudly and very publicly.

Play the race card on THEM! Oh, the irony!

Tim

"The people who passed these laws might or might not have been racists, I really neither know nor care. But we are not racists today. Yes, we want to stop black people from having firearms, but we also want to stop white people and every other color from having them. So, we are totally color blind - NOBODY should have guns. So there!"

:rolleyes:

choprzrul
12-20-2009, 11:19 AM
So theoretically, the 1st amendment wouldn't apply to the council itself. In this case, I say they should just sit there and be quiet! They shouldn't get to use their 1st amendment rights if I can't use my 2nd amendment rights.

Full Clip
12-20-2009, 11:20 AM
Why would you let them force you out when we're less than a year away from having 2A applied against the states?

We're winning, and Sacramento's frustrating but irrelevant support of Chicago will not affect the outcome.

Let's keep our chins held high and press on.

Yes, it's true. I know...
But this is just one reason to move. Let's talk punitive taxation, crap schools, high cost of living, dysfunctional government at every level, crumbling infrastructure... the 2nd A issue is just the icing on the cake.
CA is no longer "golden," it's pyrite. So am I a fool for staying?

REH
12-20-2009, 11:30 AM
And soon McCarty will be adding his brand of "quality" to the California Assembly...

-Gene

That is were Lopez came from.

Lone_Gunman
12-20-2009, 11:44 AM
The gun grabbers are "true believers". They will never, never, never, never give up. This is why we have to be vigilant in protecting our rights. Even after incorporation the fight will not be even close to being over. After incorporation, really, the fight will have just begun. At this point we are in a holding pattern. You think they are ruthless and irrational now wait till we get a couple of big wins under our belts. It is going to be a long and hard fight. That said, please donate to the CGF. They are our front line soldiers in this fight. We are the supply lines. This fight cannot be fought without our financial support. If you can, set up you online bill pay to donate monthly to CGF. All I can afford is $10.00 a month but that is what comes out and is automatically sent to the CGF every month. $120.00 a year isn't much but if even 5,000 of us active members would do it it would add up to 50K a month or 600K a year. How is that for a war chest?

vf111
12-20-2009, 5:11 PM
Like SCOTUS will give a rat's ***** what the Sac City Council thinks. Heck - most poeple in Sac do not give a crap what these knuckleheads think!

aileron
12-20-2009, 6:07 PM
After incorporation, really, the fight will have just begun. At this point we are in a holding pattern.

I kinda like to think of it as, "we are in a staging area." :43:

Aegis
12-20-2009, 7:05 PM
This is simply grasping at straws by a desperate city council.

RP1911
12-20-2009, 7:12 PM
This is simply grasping at straws by a desperate city council.

It's McCarthy doing the bidding for the organization that approached him to introduce it. Cohn too (my district council member). I don't think the council would have done this on their own.

hoffmang
12-20-2009, 8:14 PM
It's McCarthy doing the bidding for the organization that approached him to introduce it. Cohn too (my district council member). I don't think the council would have done this on their own.

That .org would be LCAV (http://www.lcav.org/).

-Gene

okimreloaded
12-21-2009, 11:08 AM
City of Sacramento has no power to do anything of the sort - It's ridiculous that incorporation isn't automatic.