Supreme Court urged to take on gun rights

AP | 7/03/03 | GINA HOLLAND

[kattracks]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is being asked to overturn an appeals court ruling that said the Constitution does not guarantee people a personal right to own a gun.

The court's past rulings on Second Amendment gun rights — many in the 1800s — are a mess that should be straightened out when the justices return from their summer break, an appeal being filed Thursday at the court said.

The appeal relates to one of two closely watched cases from the liberal-leaning 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The high court will also decide later this year whether to review a 9th Circuit ruling that banned teacher-led reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools because of the phrase "under God."

The gun case includes an unlikely group of challengers — not the National Rifle Association or other organized groups, but some rugby teammates and friends. They include a police SWAT officer, a Purple Heart recipient, a former Marine sniper, a parole officer, a stockbroker and others with varied political views. They had sued the state over laws banning high-powered weapons.

"Citizens need the Second Amendment for protection of their families, homes and businesses," their attorney and rugby teammate, Gary Gorski of Fair Oaks, Calif., wrote in the appeal of a ruling that upheld California's assault weapons ban.

The Second Amendment states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The 9th Circuit panel said the amendment's intent was to protect gun rights of militias, not individuals. A more conservative appeals court in New Orleans has ruled that individuals have a constitutional right to guns.

Eugene Volokh, a constitutional law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the Supreme Court's record on the Second Amendment is thin and odds are against the justices taking the case.

"The court hasn't jumped into it since 1939," he said. "At some point the Supreme Court will want to make sure it is interpreted consistently throughout the nation."

The case brings a politically charged issue to the court just before the presidential election. If justices agree to hear the case, it will be scheduled for argument next year.

Last year, gun-control advocates were dismayed by the Bush administration's endorsement of individual gun-ownership rights, in a filing at the Supreme Court that effectively reversed long-standing federal government policy on interpreting the Second Amendment.

The administration could weigh in now in this case. Mathew Nosanchuk, litigation director for the pro-gun control Violence Policy Center, said it's better strategy for the White House to steer clear of the issue. The California case involves a state assault weapons ban, and there is controversy over whether Congress should renew a federal assault weapons ban next year.

President Bush has said he supports extending the federal ban, but sentiment is strong in the GOP-controlled Congress to let the ban expire and Bush has not put much energy into efforts to extend it.

Some advocates on both sides probably want the justices to decline to review the 9th Circuit ruling, said gun rights attorney Stephen Halbrook. "It's a wild card. You really can't read where they'll go."

He also said the case is complicated because it involves questions about state authority to undercut gun rights and whether the challengers had standing to sue the state.

___

On the Net:

9th Circuit: http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov

Volokh's archive on gun rulings: http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm

[Unknown Freeper]

rkba bump

[Pern]

For your ping list.

[sauropod]

ping

[jjm2111]

Of course the Supremes will read "reasonable restrictions" into the 2nd. To make matters more confusing they won't define it.

I relish the thought of a 2a SCOTUS ruling. I will let us all know where we stand. Either give us our rights back or let us know we are marching down the road to repression.

[IrishBrigade]

Sandra Day O'Connor will be all for rights to bear arms, as long as the group bearing them has a critical mass of diverse skin colors...

[nygoose]

What is the date of the original article? The link is to a Free Republic archive file and doesn't seem to work. If this was written today we have to question the timing since we now have the new "compelling state interest" doctrine.

[ZULU]

I don't think this court is a good forum. They should wait until Bush can appoint some other justices after that old b*tch O'Connor retires.

Souter, Stevens, Bader-Ginsburg abd Breyer are all leftists and anti-gun. Kennedy and O'Connor are unreliable. The only two strong pro-gun possibilities are Thomas and Scalia.
Even Rundquist has proven himslef unreliable on Constitutional issues. This is no longer a conservative or even a moderate court. It has been radicalized by Bill Clinton.

[stevio]

How about stating it like this?
Either give us our rights back or let us know we are marching down the road .....

[FreedomPoster]

>>Either give us our rights back

We have the rights. The issue is that they are not recognized by Federal, State, and local governments.

[mondonico]

I agree with other posters that the wisdom of bringing this up in this court at this time may be a tactical error.

This story reminds me of Condoleeza Rice's sure-fire way to shut up an annoying, lefty firearm-phobe. She is a staunch supporter of the RKBA. When challenged on this, she said that the Second Amendment was essential to her father's (or grandfather's --I forget) and the town watch's ability to patrol the neighborhood with his shotgun when the police couldn't be counted on to protect her family from the KKK. I like to relate this story to gun grabbers--sometimes it makes them pipe down.

[CalvaryJohn]

Not THIS court. Not after what I saw last week. Hide your guns, people. They are coming for you.

[rellimpank]

--as I commented above, there is a very good reason the NRA is extremely careful about appealing Second Amendment cases--

[jsraggmann]

Not all states stomp on our God-given rights. In Florida, any citizen without a felony conviction can legally purchse and own any firearm he can afford. This includes full auto weapons, "assault rifles", &tc.

[FreedomPoster]

The problem lies in the over-arching matrix of un Constitutional laws limiting this right. For instance, you can't truly buy most assault rifles (select fire) due to Federal constraints.

No doubt, FL is better than most, as is GA.

[Crusader21stCentury]

We have the rights. The issue is that they are not recognized by Federal, State, and local governments.
Yeah, but they wont appreciate our exercising those rights. A lot of police officers will die following the orders of despots.

[Noachian]

Why should anyone expect a ruling on this First Amendment right that will be based on Constitutional law??

The Constitution is what nine Black Robes say it is, and if they put their collective fingers up to the wind to gauge elitist's thinking then the opinion of the Court's majority can already be foretold.

Constitutional Rights take a back seat to touchy-feely politics in Liberal/Socialist thinking.

That The People let themselves be governed by unelected elitists is a sour reflection on The People of this Republic.

[ninenot]

or let us know we are marching down the road to repression.

Did you just wake up having slept through 1936-present?

[toothless]

incorporation of the second bump!

[ought-six]

"Yeah, but they wont appreciate our exercising those rights. A lot of police officers will die following the orders of despots."

That is unfortunately true. I've always thought it sad that others must be placed in harm's way for the acts of the elitists. The elitists, abject cowards all, will have others do their dirty work for them. The American people must focus their attention on those elitists, not on those who are just doing their jobs.