Mahoney v. City of Seattle

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Southwest Chuck

    A Calguns Interloper.. ;)
    Jul 21, 2011
    386
    CA
    I think the 9th will happily go along with this decision ...

    The District Court's decision held that the Second Amendment does not
    provide public employees, and police officers in particular, a right of self-defense.
    ER 13. It also found that a police officer's use of his or her service weapon in selfdefense has "no relation" to the individual rights recognized in Heller. ER 14. The decision held that no independent right of self-defense exists anywhere under the Constitution.

    By the District Court's reasoning, there is no fundamental right of self-defense protected by substantive due process. ER 16-17.
    The District Court found that self-defense is not a right on par with the right to marry or to vote, nor does it "shock the conscience" if police officers are restricted or even denied the ability to use force against resisting, i.e., threatening, suspects.
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    Wow. The court doesn't even try to hide their belief that 2A is some sort of "inferior" right.

    -this claim is not cognizable under the Equal Protection Clause because it is
    “no more than a [Second] Amendment claim dressed in equal protection clothing[.]”


    The strong implication is that if it was the 14th Amendment rather than the 2nd being applied to the question before the Court, the level of scrutiny, and hence the outcome, would have been completely different.

    Good thing they don't think 1A isn't an inferior right, too, or I probably wouldn't be able to post this message. Because discouraging disagreement with Government policies certainly serves an "important government interest", after all.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,941
    Messages
    7,259,709
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom