# 9th Circuit Incorporates 2nd Amendment



## usmarine0352 (Nov 26, 2005)

.

http://themoderatevoice.com/29505/9th-c ... amendment/



> *9th Circuit Incorporates 2nd Amendment*
> 
> Posted By PATRICK EDABURN On April 20, 2009 @ 4:14 pm In At TMV, Guns, Law & Legal Matters, Law Enforcement, Legal Matters | 2 Comments
> 
> ...


.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

:beer: 
Semper fi.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

What it means is that each state would have the right to say if or not the second amendment applies. California under this provision could confiscate all firearms and there would be nothing you could do about it. The anti gun crowd will be trying every trick they can while Obama is in office, and they have their best shot. The flaw in their thinking is that the federal government can guarantee the right to free speech, the freedom of religion, the right to bear arms etc. They are counting on liberal interpretation of the constitution. It will not make it to the supreme court fast. Perhaps about the time Obama appoints a new judge or two.


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Very interesting.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

No,the 9th Circuit(federal court)said the States CAN'T deal with this separately.They are bound by the Supreme courts decision.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Good explanation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEWS RELEASE
Second Amendment Foundation
12500 NE Tenth Place Â• Bellevue, WA 98005
(425) 454-7012 Â• FAX (425) 451-3959 Â• www.saf.org

NINTH CIRCUIT RULES 2ND AMENDMENT INCORPORATED TO STATES

For Immediate Release: Contact: Alan Gottlieb (425) 454-7012

BELLEVUE, WA - The Second Amendment Foundation today applauded the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco for ruling that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states and local governments.

The majority opinion was written by Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, with a concurring opinion from Judge Ronald M. Gould, who wrote, "The right to bear arms is a bulwark against external invasionÂ&#8230;That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in an attack on any community before more professional forces arrived."

Although the court found against the plaintiffs in the case of Nordyke v. King - Russell and Sallie Nordyke, operators of a gun show in Alameda County, CA - the court acknowledged that its earlier position that the Second Amendment protected only a collective right of states has been overruled by the Supreme Court's 2008 historic ruling in District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller. That was the case in which the high court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right to keep and bear arms.

"This is a great victory for advancement of the fundamental individual right of American citizens to own firearms," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. "The Ninth Circuit panel has acknowledged that the Heller ruling abrogated its earlier position on the Second Amendment, and it further clarified that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment through the due process clause."

SAF attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued the Heller case before the Supreme Court in March 2008, filed an amicus brief in the Nordyke case. The Nordykes sued when Alameda County banned gun shows at the county fairgrounds by making it illegal to bring or possess firearms or ammunition on county property.

"The Heller ruling in 2008 was the first critical step toward full restoration of the individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms to its rightful position as a cornerstone of the Bill of Rights," Gottlieb observed. "This victory in the Ninth Circuit not only reinforces the Heller ruling, it expands upon it."

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for that clarification. It's hard to believe isn't it? The 9th is often referred to as the 9th Circus Court. I'm asstounded, and guardedly optimistic.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> What it means is that each state would have the right to say if or not the second amendment applies. California under this provision could confiscate all firearms and there would be nothing you could do about it. The anti gun crowd will be trying every trick they can while Obama is in office, and they have their best shot.


Wow, paranoid much?

You have no idea what this ruling is about, or that it is even pro-gun, yet you instantly start theorizing about how it is another attempt for the government to take your guns.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Matt, I read the entire brief a week or so ago regarding this. It was not until I had went through it and asked questions of some legal minds did I get the affirmation of the 2nd to the 14th which is a big win for gun owners.

However as the Heller ruling and now this ruling sits, we still have a big area of concern and one case in particular is one out of IL
http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-conten ... _brief.pdf

That will have much more bearing on Heller and the 2nd than this case.

Might sound a bit harsh, but Matt plain and simple, the Dem party as a whole do not want to see these types of rulings come forward because each one curtails the things they will try and do. You jumping on Plainsman opens the door for others to jump on you for the positions and people you have supported and the pressure that those people are causing us right now.
So Plainsman stepped up and admitted he missed something, when are you going to do the same?


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

> So Plainsman stepped up and admitted he missed something, when are you going to do the same?


I swear some of you guys need happy pills or something. Even a good thing gets turned into a " what if" scenario.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Matt before you wet your pants over catching me wrong pay enough attention and you will see I admitted I was wrong. If a person wants to keep their credability it's best to admit when your wrong rather than keep debating in the hopes of hiding it. Everyone can see through that. 
The first one was not clear to me. The 9th Circus court has a bad rep. Experience, past records, etc all lead me to a faulty conclusion, but I got it now. My experience with liberals and that court will keep me on guard. It doesn't add up to the usual so I hope I have your permission to be suspicious.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Plainsman the court brief was posted on another site and I read through it a number of times but did not come away knowing for sure if it was a positive ruling or not. Like I said I had to defer to those in the legal field I know to make sure.

The ruling while positive in regards to what it says also contains some very negative precedent setting rulings though. They basically have now allowed cities and counties and well as Fed Gov to be very liberal in what is defined as a sensitive area which really was what this case was all about.

Fargo in theory or any city can with this ruling neuter almost anyones ablity to carry. A sensitive area can now be defined as a public street or sidewalk.

So while there is positives in this ruling there is also some very negative parts as well and why the ruling regarding the IL case may be of great importance.

Some need to dig a bit deeper into these things before jumping for joy. Plainsman was right to question the 9th ruling because they now have set the standard for just about any taxing authority to define sensitive areas where gun possession even with a CC is legal.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Yes,life is not all roses but this is huge-especially considering the Circuit.
On a somewhat related note,there often is hostility towards the NRA by gun owners and others who support the 2nd amendment for assorted reasons(too many mailings seeking $$,support for crossbows,whatever)but I urge those people to look at and think about supporting the org that plays a role in almost all these cases.A very strong,active,legal role.
See: www.saf.org


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Ron Gilmore said:


> So Plainsman stepped up and admitted he missed something, when are you going to do the same?


When I miss something Ron. Isn't that how it usually works? Feel free to point out something that I've missed on this issue...since it sounds like you're accusing me of being mistaken. If you're correct, I'll be more than happy to admit it.


Plainsman said:


> Matt before you wet your pants over catching me wrong pay enough attention and you will see I admitted I was wrong. If a person wants to keep their credability it's best to admit when your wrong rather than keep debating in the hopes of hiding it. Everyone can see through that.


It's not a big deal that you were wrong. What is important, is why you were wrong and that is because you're irrationally paranoid. It's not like you just didn't have your facts straight...you instantly went in to panic mode without any justification.

Your train of thought brought you to the conclusion that this had to be a government plan for the confiscation of firearms. We are so far from that, it falls in the category of black helicopter delusions. We're not even going to see a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban...yet you're honestly worried about door to door confiscation...like it's even a possibility.


Plainsman said:


> The first one was not clear to me. The 9th Circus court has a bad rep. Experience, past records, etc all lead me to a faulty conclusion, but I got it now. My experience with liberals and that court will keep me on guard. It doesn't add up to the usual so I hope I have your permission to be suspicious.


Assuming that every headline that is gun related is really a secret backdoor way for the government to take your guns isn't suspicious...that is full-fledged paranoia my friend. There is a distinct division between the two.

But hey, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you. :wink:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Actually Matt it is you that are jumping to conclusions especially in regards to this issue. As I said, I had seen the news release with a link to the brief a week prior to this being posted here. Like anything from the District courts 5th 7th or 9th it does not matter, I read the brief and do not rely on someone's written opinion piece to form my conclusions.

The 9th is the most liberal of the District courts and it is also the most overturned of the courts because of the far reaching conclusions not supported by Constitutional grounds. I was aware of this case a long time ago, and that the central issue the plaintiffs where arguing was that the 2nd gave them the right to hold their gun show and that the county was in violation of their rights by passing a law stating otherwise.

This was not a case of the level of definition of the 2nd that Heller was nor is it to the level that the IL case is. It became significant because of the broad base they allowed to stand as sensitive areas that are of public use.

I was not surprised by the ruling denying the plaintiff, I was pleasantly pleased they linked it to the 14th, but I made no assumptions prior to reading the brief the court put forth.

So Matt, you once again want to make this into a political party thing when all that took place was that Plainsman misunderstood the original post and once provided with a clearer picture acknowledged he made a mistake.

I am waiting to hear from you your take on Conrad allowing the mining or medical records to be used to deny gun ownership?

You really need to think hard about that, because even a short term use of anti depression meds or people who have ADS could be barred from use of a firearm even though they are of no threat.

You fail to realize that getting socialism installed is also going to limit or remove your ablity to hunt, or shoot for sport. But at your age, I am not surprised you cannot see that far ahead.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Actually Matt it is you that are jumping to conclusions especially in regards to this issue.


Really. That's rich Ron. Plainsman freaks out about how this ruling will allow state governments to strip their citizens of their 2nd amendment rights and cofiscate their firearms...and I'm the one jumping to conclusions?

I said this ruling was pro-gun, that's it. You obviously are much better versed on the topic than I am but I was under the impression that this decision was viewed positively by supporter's of the 2nd amendment. It was a blanket statement that I'll stand by and I don't see how that constitutes 'jumping to a conclusion.'


Ron Gilmore said:


> So Matt, you once again want to make this into a political party thing when all that took place was that Plainsman misunderstood the original post and once provided with a clearer picture acknowledged he made a mistake.


Ron, what the hell are you talking about? Honestly.

I am completely dumbfounded that you're accusing me of turning this into a "political party thing." I would sincerely appreciate it if you would quote me on where I did this, or where it could even be misconstrued that I implied it. If you don't grant me this favor, then I can only assume that you are the one guilty of wanting to turn this into a "political party thing."


Ron Gilmore said:


> I am waiting to hear from you your take on Conrad allowing the mining or medical records to be used to deny gun ownership?


I read the Gun Owners of America email a week ago...and I remember making a tongue in cheek comment about it back when it was in the stimulus bill. I don't like the idea of having government physicians determine if you are mentally capable of owning a gun. That I am 100% against.

But at the same time, I'm not going to completely form my opinion based off of one email from a source that is admittedly extremely biased and jump to the conclusion that this is some sort of giant backdoor attempt for massive gun control. I meant to email Conrad's office and ask about it when I read it, so I'll do that...and I'll be sure to let him know my stance on the gun portion of it.


Ron Gilmore said:


> You fail to realize that getting socialism installed is also going to limit or remove your ablity to hunt, or shoot for sport. But at your age, I am not surprised you cannot see that far ahead.


That is an excellent point Ron...Socialism and hunting would be a disaster! Think how terrible it'd be to have government agencies managing a publicly-owned resource via government owned and maintained refuges with many hunters utilizing government owned land to hunt on? Dear God! The Horror!

I CANNOT believe YOU, of all people, said that. When it comes to hunting I thought you were as Socialist as they come. FACT: Socialism saved hunting in this country.

Should I list some of the dozens of comments you've made against guides and outfitters? Private land leasing? Or how our public resources shouldn't be sold off? You know, the ones ardently opposed to Capitalism and hunting?

It's alright to admit that socialism can be a good thing in certain cases...it doesn't make you a "Socialist" for doing so. It just means you're smart enough to not hinder yourself with a single idealogy.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Matt being against the commercialization of a public resource does not equate to socialism. However, socialism does not equate as you attempt to spin it as being pro hunting. It in fact will eliminate hunting as an option within the socialism political mindset because it is done with weapons and weapons are not something they want any ordinary person to have from bows to rifles.

Now back to the court ruling, it is just as much anti gun owner as it is pro gun and if you had read the brief you would understand this. The ruling as it is now allows states,counties and cities to declare with no restriction areas to be of a *sensitive nature* simply because a gather of people may be present. Ding! Ding!

If you cannot grasp the implications that this has, I feel very sorry for you Matt!!!!!

We will see cities across the nation declare streets and sidewalks off limits to carrying of a legally owned and licensed gun for conceal carry and for those of you who want NP and such to allow you a personal side arm or other firearm to be allowed to protect you or your family from bears or other creatures. This ruling just made it much more unlikely that this will happen.

Matt, you really do not get it at all.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman freaks out about how this ruling


I freak out? Matt, get a grip. Once clear I was not freaking out. It was simply hard for me to believe the 9th would get anything right.

As for the rest, watch the anti gun crowd push their agenda during this administration. That's not paranoia, that's reality. On the other hand it would appear your head is buried in the sand. With the history of the people now in power, you don't have to be paranoid to worry, you have to be naive not to.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

One guy with a thought process like Jones is too many when it comes to gun control. Destructively incoherent.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Matt being against the commercialization of a public resource does not equate to socialism.


The very concept of having a public resource is socialist. I'm not sure how to respond since you either don't have an understanding of what socialism is, or for some reason you're unwilling to admit that when it comes to wildlife management you favor socialism over capitalism (which you very clearly do).

Maybe I can help clarify things, socialism is an economic/political theory that advocates collective or government ownership of the means of production and/or distribution of goods.

Judging by what I've seen you say in some other threads, here's some examples of socialism that you seem to understand.

Government ownership and management of banks is socialist.
Government ownership and management of healthcare is socialist.
Government ownership and management of a vehicle manufacturing plant is socialist, and guess what?

Government ownership and management of wildife is also socialist.



Ron Gilmore said:


> However, socialism does not equate as you attempt to spin it as being pro hunting.


I didn't spin anything Ron, the switch from managing wildlife in this country from capitalism to socialism saved it. When the government took ownership of wildlife it stopped the overharvest from market hunting, and ended the private ownership of game animals.

As an example of what a capitalist system of game management in ND would look like, for starters it would include the dissolution of the game and fish dept...all wildlife would be privately owned by whomever owns the land they were on. They would be free to do whatever they wanted to their animals; they could sell them or eradicate them, there wouldn't be any seasons or limits...it would be all up to their discretion.

It sounds like a nightmare to me, and it was...why do you think so many species were pushed to the brink by the beginning of the 20th century?

Furthermore, if the use of capitalism for game management would have prevailed in this country there'd certainly be far less hunters, and thus far less gun owners. We'd be more like Europe where hunters and gun owners represent a much smaller minority than they do here and look at what's happened to them as a result. I think capitalism has increasingly creeped it's way back into our sport and it has and will be very detrimental (via guides, land leasing, etc. = modern market hunting, creating a sport for a smaller segment of society). I think it's a direct cause for a decline in hunter numbers. Over time it will erode our ranks and make it possible for the abolishment of hunting and gun rights in the future.

Capitalism is a good system for many things...but not everything. Just because you advocate socialism for wildlife management doesn't mean you want to see it used in other aspects.

Now that you know all about socialism Ron, feel free to admit that when it comes to wildlife management, you favor it. Come on now, I want to hear you say it, "My name is Ron Gilmore and when it comes to hunting I'm a socialist." 

BTW, sorry for the long post. I guess that's what happens when you have to educate instead of discuss. It's hard to imagine that I could know something you don't since you're older than me and all. :wink:


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

...sorry, I missed a couple things...


Ron Gilmore said:


> It in fact will eliminate hunting as an option within the socialism political mindset because it is done with weapons and weapons are not something they want any ordinary person to have from bows to rifles.


You are confusing socialism with fascism.


Ron Gilmore said:


> Now back to the court ruling, it is just as much anti gun owner as it is pro gun and if you had read the brief you would understand this. The ruling as it is now allows states,counties and cities to declare with no restriction areas to be of a *sensitive nature* simply because a gather of people may be present. Ding! Ding!


I already admitted that you know more about this ruling than I do, so I will take your word for it.

I apologize for making the mistake that this was pro-gun. I guess I was just going off of what a prominent group supporting the 2nd amendment said...since I'm sure they employ several lawyers who, like yourself, also read the briefing and determined it was a good thing.

When these groups say something is Negative it is Negative, and when they say something is Positive...it is still Negative. I didn't understand this distinction and I'll try my best to remember it in the future. Thank you for clarifying this for me.

:roll:


----------



## utahhunter1 (May 3, 2009)

plainsman may or may not be paranoid its a matter of opinion but i have a feeling that it is people like plainsman who have kept the government in check all of these years. Where would we be today if there were no paranoid gun owners????


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Matt the powers that created our Constitution made the wildlife of this nation owned by all and protecting that from extreme exploitation does not rise to socialism. If it did, then no entry other than the Gov could at anytime profit from its existence. You did spin it the way I figured you would to make your belief in socialism be something noble. It is far, from it.

Also Matt, I think you need a bit more reading comprehension classes as well. I did not say this ruling was anti gun or that there was not some positive things in it. I pointed out correctly and with my own research and by checking with people who are very well in tune with these things as to the pitfalls that this ruling created. It closed one door but opened another door at the very same time which has many minefields in it.

I like the fact that you simply take other peoples words for things and admit you do not do any collective reasoning and thinking on your own. It explains a lot as to why you have chosen to support those who wish to limit personal ownership and use of firearms be it out right or back door attempts. Given that nothing right now is off the table in regards to what they plan to do such as re-instate the AWB( a promise your Messiah made during his campaign) but timing is not right to do so politically to total re-distribution of wealth through taxes and Gov give away programs which they have undertaken.

You really have no concept of what the Constitution was drafted to do and how far our government lead by politic ans have drifted away from it trying to gain favor with people like you with a mindset that entitlements are more important than the Constitution.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Matt Jones said:


> Government ownership and management of banks is socialist.
> Government ownership and management of healthcare is socialist.
> Government ownership and management of a vehicle manufacturing plant is socialist, and guess what?
> 
> Government ownership and management of wildife is also socialist.


Yes ,yes and yes to the first three. The govt. has left the farm and it is no longer we the people, it is the politicians that have assumed total control and rule as such. Socialist.

No the the last statement, it is still entrusted to we the people to manage. By a thread. I have not heard of govt. ownership of wildlife, management yes but not ownership.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Ron Gilmore wrote " Matt the powers that created our Constitution made the wildlife of this nation owned by all "

Can anyone show where in the US constitution this designation is made???


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

GST,
Its not specifically written in the constitution-nor do I think Mr Gilmore meant that.Its inherent in it in that powers/rights not specifically granted to Gov'tment are reserved for the people.
As opposed to 'game' or wildlife belonging to the King or the otherwise privileged.
Eventually the need for 'regulation' of these rights arose but the regulation was put in place by the people via their representatives.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

duckp Which do you believe the powers that created our Constitution believed to be a more important right. The ability of the people to use the land they owned in a manner that does not have undue negative consequences on society as a whole without the burden of government regulations or interference, or the management of wildlife thru these regulations so that all idividuals have the "right" to recreational opportunities.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting there is no need for regulation or conservation or management of our wildlife and I'm aware things are much different now than in the 1700's. But if there is to be discussion of their intent, I'm merely asking at what level would these framers of our Consititution believe these "regulations" appropriate.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> duckp Which do you believe the powers that created our Constitution believed to be a more important right.


I don't think you and I will ever know. Since most politicians even the old ones are perhaps going to hell, I don't think we will get the chance to ask. Ask someone who puts money ahead of everything else and maybe some day they can get the word back to us somehow. 

I don't think they could make up their mind which was more important so they did both. They were in the hopes that none of us would get to greedy and try shaft each other. Oh, well, it worked for a while.

In the not to distant future, if things keep going the way they are, we will both loose. Hunting will be outlawed the same as private land ownership. I would predict that within the next century farmers will be working for a federal salary. United we stand divided we both fall.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

GST,
I don't think the actual framers of the constitution thought or talked much about it.The 'new' attitude towards wildlife had been practiced here for over a hundred years before they got around to the constitution.From Plymouth rock on(or Runestone rock  if you're a Viking fan)wildlife was not the Kings but belonged to all-whoever wanted to or could harvest it.
Frankly,I doubt they would have approved any 'regulation' on individual rights regarding wildlife at that time.They certainly,IMO,would not have approved anything that interfered with ones 'private' property if thats what you're asking.
I doubt there was little if any discussion about 'regulation' in this area til the need for it was obvious-many years later.


----------



## fesnthunner (Mar 16, 2009)

I just want to say that in reading through all of this very entertaining dialogue, that I am impresed with the way Matt Jones has carried and presented himself. You, Matt are obviously much wiser than some might give you credit for.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

fesnthunner said:


> I just want to say that in reading through all of this very entertaining dialogue, that I am impresed with the way Matt Jones has carried and presented himself. You, Matt are obviously much wiser than some might give you credit for.


----------



## fesnthunner (Mar 16, 2009)

I see you never miss an opportunity to belittle someone at any time over a harmless comment. I bet you are a bunch of laughs around your friends.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

fesnthunner said:


> I see you never miss an opportunity to belittle someone at any time over a harmless comment. I bet you are a bunch of laughs around your friends.


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

I think it's a bit strange that the judge (of all people) pointed to prevention of an external treat such as a terrorist attack as the main point of argument for a need to keep our 2nd amendment rights. I have always been under the impression that our founding fathers made it a point to guaranty our right to bear arms as a deterrence and counter measure to our own military and the government that controls them. External treats have always been deterred by military force. But an armed populace is deterrence to oppression and tyranny from the governing body of the country. I guess they don't teach that at judge school anymore


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

fesnthunner said:


> I see you never miss an opportunity to belittle someone at any time over a harmless comment. I bet you are a bunch of laughs around your friends.


Actually I put up the smiley faces because I think you guys are so close you could just have told him that. Really. No belittling intended. I thought you knew where Matt was at and would catch on to my smiles.

I am a little confused. Since your so new how did you get this opinion so fast?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

duckp, Thats my point. Back in the time period that our Constitution was written hunting was a way of life that provided sustinance for the majority of the people. For the most part, you hunted or you starved, and yet something of this degree of importance didn't recieve a mention such as Ron inferred in the Constitution. Hunting now has evolved into merely a sport, be it one we are very passionate about, but a sport none the less, a very small minority of people rely on it for sustinance. So I question wether the framers of our Constitution would even include it today as a form of recreation in this document. As to the increase in regulations that we are seeing some people wanting in regards to hunting and opportunity and what can or can't be done on private lands, our forefathers of the colonial times left countries whose governments were imposing regulations in much similar ways that started to overstep the bounds that these visionary founders felt were right and they came and settled new lands to be free of the consequences of these increased regulations. Like I said before, I am very aware of the need for some regulation, but we should perhaps ask how much is truly necessary, and what is simply one groups attempt to push their beliefs on the rest, somewhat like what the framers of the Constitution left behind. I'm surprised at the number of people on this site that by their other posts appear to be conservatives that seem to want less government in our lives, but when it comes to hunting want more and more regulations put in place.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

gst, the issues at hand that you so much want to defend threaten wildlife,threaten the cattle herds in this state etc... which have been hashed over many times. So as to not high jack this thread start a new one because your opinions and ideas are really not relevant to this thread!


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> conservatives that seem to want less government in our lives, but when it comes to hunting want more and more regulations put in place.


Hunting is the one issue the gov't (state)needs to control because we have seen in other states what happens when things go unregulated. We have also seen the destruction of some wildlife in the past when things were not controlled by the G&F.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

4CurlRedleg said:


> No the the last statement, it is still entrusted to we the people to manage. By a thread. I have not heard of govt. ownership of wildlife, management yes but not ownership.


Legally speaking the government does own the wildlife. When someone is prosecuted for poaching who do you think the plaintiff in the case is? It is the state, not the people.

The concept is that the resource is collectively owned and shared by the people and managed for their good via the governments legal ownership...which serves as an extension of the people's. This concept is fundamentally socialist.

By definition...

Public ownership = Socialism
Private ownership = Capitalism

This is really not that hard of a concept to understand. Don't take my word for it (as if you ever would), go look it up.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Matt the powers that created our Constitution made the wildlife of this nation owned by all and protecting that from extreme exploitation does not rise to socialism.


Who are these powers that be? Federal constitution, state constitution...which one? Under what legal docement was this declaration made?

I'm doubting what you say, so I'd like you to do some more explaining before I believe you.

The only thing I can think of is the public trust doctrine, which wasn't adopted in the United States until 1892...long after the framers of the constitution were dead.


Ron Gilmore said:


> If it did, then no entry other than the Gov could at anytime profit from its existence.


Uh, no one can? When was the last time you heard of anyone privately selling wildlife for harvest, with not being prosecuted for it? You can legally guide someone but they have to be licensed by the state first. The state is the sole entity that can allow anyone to legally harvest game.


Ron Gilmore said:


> I like the fact that you simply take other peoples words for things and admit you do not do any collective reasoning and thinking on your own.


Ron, after you look up the definitons of both capitalism and socialism, so you can learn to differentiate between the two...I think it'd also be beneficial to look up the word 'Sarcasm.' That entire post was dripping with it.


Ron Gilmore said:


> You really have no concept of what the Constitution was drafted to do


I'm calling into question your concept of it until you point out where this part is...


Ron Gilmore said:


> the powers that created our Constitution made the wildlife of this nation owned by all


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Please stop the nonsense.'Socialism' is an economic term referring to a type of economic theory and/or system.It has nothing to do with wildlife ownership or management.
The fact the 'public' owns something,doesn't mean its 'socialistic'.All capitalistic societies contain and own 'public' property.We here may,IMO unfortunately,be trending toward a more 'socialistic'view but still remain a capitalistic country.Even when there was no doubt,say in the golden years of imperialism when 'capitalists' were driving Marx,Lenin and other cuckoos nuts,we had 'public' property.(parks,government buildings,etc-and our wildlife.)
For a grade school overview see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

duckp said:


> Please stop the nonsense.'Socialism' is an economic term referring to a type of economic theory and/or system.It has nothing to do with wildlife ownership or management.
> The fact the 'public' owns something,doesn't mean its 'socialistic'.All capitalistic societies contain and own 'public' property.We here may,IMO unfortunately,be trending toward a more 'socialistic'view but still remain a capitalistic country.Even when there was no doubt,say in the golden years of imperialism when 'capitalists' were driving Marx,Lenin and other cuckoos nuts,we had 'public' property.(parks,government buildings,etc-and our wildlife.)
> For a grade school overview see:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism


You need to go to the politics forum and also post this off to half the posts made there, as it applies in other contexts as well.

Problem is that most don't truly grasp the differences, and it has been regurgitated by the talking heads enough, that it has become "true".


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> Actually I put up the smiley faces because I think you guys are so close you could just have told him that. Really. No belittling intended. I thought you knew where Matt was at and would catch on to my smiles.
> 
> I am a little confused. Since your so new how did you get this opinion so fast?


Plainsman, what exactly are you implying? You're a mod, why don't you look up his url since you seem to be saying you think it's me or something...?

Thanks for the kind words fesnthunner.

I've actually received several pm's from past discussions (and this one too) from people who agree with my viewpoint. I guess they just don't want to post publicly because then they'll have to deal with the bullying tactics used by people like you, that you resort to when you have nothing intellectual to say to support your argument. :wink:


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Ryan,
I'd love to but at my age,I try to keep my heartbeat and emotional condition under control so must decline to get into more politics.  
Just couldn't take it anymore in the context of legal arguments over constitutional rights.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Matt Jones said:


> I've actually received several pm's from past discussions (and this one too) from people who agree with my viewpoint. I guess they just don't want to post publicly because then they'll have to deal with the bullying tactics used by people like you, that you resort to when you have nothing intellectual to say to support your argument. :wink:


I know the feeling....

very very well.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman, what exactly are you implying? You're a mod, why don't you look up his url since you seem to be saying you think it's me or something...?


Na, that would be like cheating. I thought it was just coincidental is all. I didn't think it was you, I thought maybe it was a room mate. He was right though you do handle it well. Little sarcastic, but so am I. Sometimes that sets people against you though, so I have been trying to curb my sarcasm some.

Truth be told I nearly agree with you on some things. It's just that I like to poke a little fun at you when your so sarcastic. From reading your posts I know you understand that.

As for the socialist thing, I really enjoyed that simple explanation duckp linked to. I'll leave it at that since if I debated it the political form would be more appropriate than open form. After reading the explanation though I think it takes game animals out of the socialist equation.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

duckp,


Matt Jones said:


> Maybe I can help clarify things, socialism is an economic/political theory that advocates collective or government ownership of the means of production and/or distribution of goods.


I know what socialism is. The terms capitalism and socialism have been applied to wildlife management before, and I'm certainly not the first guy to do it. Although I'll fully admit that that's not originally what either theory was formed for.


duckp said:


> The fact the 'public' owns something,doesn't mean its 'socialistic'.All capitalistic societies contain and own 'public' property.


Public ownership is socialist. Just because we are a capitalist society it doesn't mean that we don't have elements of our society that are distinctly socialist. There seems to be a tendency that because we label ourselves capitalists, the socialist parts of our society are somehow not socialist anymore...supposedly because they conflict with the bigger image we've built for ourselves.

What I'm getting at is that some people have painted such a narrow political idealogy for themselves that their heads would probably explode if they were somehow forced to realize that they favored socialism over capitalism under any circumstance...as if it would make them any less pro-capitalism or any more pro-socialism. Our country has been one that has included both for a long time.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I favor some socialism over capitalism in some circumstances. Some people hate social security which is socialistic. If the politicians would stop robbing the funds it would be ok. It give minimal savings to those who would otherwise save nothing. They contribute to it. Without it in the end they would either starve or we would pay. At least this way they contribute. Unless they are an illegal alien or a terrorist from Gitmo.

With all that said animal ownership I don't think is socialist. Socialism requires that they take something from some or all and give back as they see fit.

fesnthunner seeing that our complement was real it was kind of you. That's about as close as I get to eating crow, I don't much like the taste of it.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Matt,
I don't want to argue and frankly don't care how we label wildlife ownership but public ownership equates to 'socialism' only in your mind.
All capitalist societies have some 'public' property historically.Just a fact.Likewise,all 'socialist' regimes have some private property.Neither case is determinitive of whether its a 'socialist' or 'capitalist' state.
Confusing economic theory and production/control mechanics with wildlife issues is just foolish and definitionally incorrect.If it makes you feel better have at it I guess.
By the way,maybe we have a 'mixed wildlife system'.  The point is,we have a wildlife system free of economic theory wheras 'capitalism' and 'socialism' are just that,economic theories..See more grade school info:
http://www.answers.com/topic/capitalism


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

duckp, in all seriousness I think we simply have some people who want to inject this political aspect into it in an effort to make socialism acceptable. It has little to do with wildlife and more to do with political agendas. 
It's good to see people informed about the second amendment. Especially since this is mostly a hunting site. I have however been toying with the idea of sending this to the political form. I'll wait a little and see what direction it takes.


----------



## utahhunter1 (May 3, 2009)

Guys educate me please the way I see it does it matter wether the wildlife managent system in our country is socialist or capitalistic. In my opinion I have no proplem with the way the government controls our wildlife. I think they do a pretty good job for the most part and in regards with hunting and wildlife managent my rights have never been trampled on unfairly by the F&G. I believe the program works, yes some things need to be fixed but all and all it is run well in my opinion and works and has for a long time. So does the whole capitalism and socialism argument really matter?? Please explain.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

IMO it doesn't matter a bit ands I'm through talking about it.I'm in this thread only cause of the second amendment anyway.I appologize for my role in sidetracking the thread.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Matt Jones said:


> Legally speaking the government does own the wildlife. When someone is prosecuted for poaching who do you think the plaintiff in the case is? It is the state, not the people.


Management. Not ownership.

Regardless, we are still a nation/state of laws to manage civil semblance even where wildlife is concerned. Whether it is seasons, bag limits or an all out hunting ban on some species it falls down to management ruled by regulations and laws. We agreed earlier on a different thread that we do not accept anarchy, it will apply here as well with wildlife management.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

So it seems Matt was successful in changing the direction of this thread. Instead of actually reading the brief put forth by the Circuit court he attacks Plainsman and then twists the debate into one of socialism vs capitalism all the time avoiding the fact that he simply was not well informed regarding the ruling and the long term affects both good and bad it may have.

So once again Matt, have you bothered to read the brief or are you simply still getting the information to form opinions from other opinions and not from the actual document they are commenting on?

I want to apologize for allowing Matt to side track myself into this, I will be a bit more diligent next time!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Your correct Ron. Matt for some reason doesn't like my pro 2nd amendment opinions. He tells me I am paranoid. I think the attack on the second amendment is as clear as crystal. There should be no doubt in anyones mind that those controlling the democrat party want the assault weapon ban reinstated and more. Judgement on the other side is simply being clouded by wishes for something we don't know about, and when you can't defend the attack on the second amendment you deflect the debate.


----------

