Alright, I'm not a lawyer, nor am I going to try to explain what happened here as it would only confuse people.  Could someone with more legal knowledge then I please explain what this ruling means for us: [url]http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/1st/001544.html[/url]

Thanks,
Kharn

Damn lawyers...
They have to make everything difficult.

Nothing new there, Kharn.  Court held that the 2nd didn't apply to this handgun, per US v. Miller, and that the chief of police was shielded from personal liability in a federal suit, even if his actions for the background check went beyond that mandated or allowed by state law.

Conceivably, the guy could sue the sheriff at the state level for violating state law, but that wouldn't be useful, since the prohibition of the lautenberg amendment applies at the federal level, where the background check done was admissible, so it'd be hard for him to show a valid issue before the state court.  Moot points usually aren't adjudicated.

I'm civil business, but I will try to translate. Back me up if anyone sees an error.
A 1983 action is how you apply the US Constitution against a state/local government.
Plaintiff alleged a violation of his second amendment rights resulting from his denial.
The court found that the chief had qualifed immunity, and trashed the discretionary/ministerial difference (at least in cases where they like the results).
They then found that there is no Federal right to have a local offical follow state law.

Big one:

Then, they found the denial was in error, but found they don't care because the second amendment is not an absolute right.
Since no right is absolute, this means the state can deny you the right to speech (crowded theater/fire), religion (church zoning and worship hour cases), warrants (the warrant exception cases), movement (the restricted movement cases).
Pretty much either the court panel is either (1) a bunch of anti-gun lying bitches who made up some shit to hurt gun owners; or (2) they just trashed the entire Constitution and every one of the Bill of Rights in the 1st Circuit.
Guess which.

Oh, since the right to reproductive freedom is not absolute (Casey et al) I guess that local Police Chiefs can now blockade abortion clinics in the 1st Circuit. (Any chance the good Judges Torruella, Cyr, and Stahl find that's allowable?)

Happyshooter, this is exactly why I think there is only one way to end all this antigun (biased judges) nonsense. That would be to educate all potential jurists of their power to stop such idiosy. [url]http://www.fija.org/juror-handbook.htm[/url], and [url]http://civilliberty.about.com/newsissues/civilliberty/cs/jurynullification/[/url]

USNvet: the problem with that course of action is that the Circuit courts do not use juries, they have panels of 9 (IIRC) judges that decide on issues.  At the Circuit court and Supreme court, we are at the mercy of the judges, not of our peers.

Kharn

In the Federal Circuits three judge panels hear appeals. Every once in a while the entire circuit (all the appeals judges) will rehear a case when it is really bad and they are getting a lot of heat, such as the Ohio motto case (With God, all things are possible).
This is called an en banc hearing.

Kharn I know what you are saying, but if all knew their rights to begin with as they did in the 19th and early 20th century, we wouldn't be swamped with all these antigun laws today. Remember, nullification played a big part in reversing Prohibition.

Troy, do you have a link to this ruling? It is hard to believe the 9th Circuit voided the 6th Amendment all by it's lonesome! The link below is worth reading from beginning to end. Here is a little excerpt:

"Despite all the modern government resentment toward "jury nullification," its roots run deep in both our history and law. At least two provisions of the Constitution, and arguably three, protect the jury's power to nullify."

"They also explain why that power is limited to criminal cases, and has no analogy in the civil context. First, it is reflected in the Sixth Amendment, which grants the accused an inviolable right to a jury determination of his guilt or innocence in all criminal prosecutions for serious offenses. Because of this right, a trial judge absolutely cannot direct a verdict in favor of the State or set aside a jury's verdict of not guilty, "no matter how overwhelming the evidence." Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 277 (1993)."

[url]http://www.2ndlawlib.org/other/other/jurynull.html[/url]