Ruling: Second Amendment does not provide an individual right to own or possess guns

California Appellate Court via Met News ^ | 12/5/02 | Allan J. Favish

[AJFavish]

-Individual Rights-

Individual plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the California Assault Weapons Control Act since the Second Amendment does not provide an individual right to own or possess guns or other firearms. Equal Protection Clause does not invalidate provision of AWCA granting an exception from assault weapon restriction for off-duty officers since allowing such officers to perform law enforcement functions is a rational basis for the exception. Exception from assault weapon restriction for retired officers promotes no valid state interest and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Silveira v. Lockyer - filed Dec. 5, 2002

Cite as No. 0115098

Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1202%2F0115098

[go star go]

This means that there is now a conflict between two circuits for the SCOTUS has to decide the issue once and for all. This is good...

[Free the USA]

9th Circuit Court opinion (Silveira v Lockyer) dismisses 2nd Amendment argument
US Court of Appeals 9th ^ | filed 12/5/2002 | Judge Reinhardt
Posted on 12/05/2002 2:34 PM PST by Sender

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/801566/posts

[cajun-jack]

aren't these the "guys" that said "under God" was unconstitutional??? just give kalifornicate back to mexico.

[lainde]

Is this the same idiotic 9th circuit court that made the "pledge of allegiance" ruling

[aristeides]

The SCOTUS loves to reverse Stephen Reinhardt.

[Dead Corpse]

Same judge too.

[aristeides]

This new ruling was apparently written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the leading leftist on the Ninth Circuit, a member of the majority in the Pledge of Allegiance ruling, and I would assume the instigator of the Pledge ruling.

[AdamSelene235]

[G Larry]

Comeon you guys!
You know the drill....
It's the 9th Circus Court!

[o_zarkman44]

Caliphony baloney, Those courts can't decide squat based on fact, they base decisions on emotional appeals by anti gun factions and special interest groups. The cities in California are no safer then before the pre assult ban.

[go star go]

I hope they jump right in and clear up this liberal fraud immediately. The very idea that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says is so outrageous that I'm surprised that people's common sense does not cause them to laugh in the liberal's face. But, insecurities being what they are, liberals are able to advance this fraud because people's insecurities prevent them from laughing; they could after all be wrong and the liberal right goes the thought process...

[umgud]

Nice Taurus PT?. BTW, who will pick up this ball and put it before SCOTUS and when?

[gatex]

"This means that there is now a conflict between two circuits for the SCOTUS ..."

There is another 9th Circuit case -- 1996 or 1996 - that ruled that a man denied a CCW in California had no case, since the Second Amendment was not for individuals. Will try to find the case. Hope these go to SCOTUS.

[Teacher317]

This means that there is now a conflict between two circuits for the SCOTUS has to decide the issue once and for all.

Unfortunately, "has to" is not in SCOTUS's vocabulary.

[aristeides]

Unfortunately, "has to" is not in SCOTUS's vocabulary.

And they especially dislike being told they have to do something. (But I think they dislike Stephen Reinhardt's opinions even more.)

[gatex]

"It's the 9th Circus Court!"

True -- but there is some hope. The en banc 9th Circuit ruled in June. 2001, that the state of Idaho could try FBI agent Horouchi for Ruby Ridge. A newly elected prosecutor in Idaho then decided to drop the case against Horiuchi.

[Sgt_Schultze]

...the Second Amendment does not provide an individual right to own or possess guns or other firearms...

Right. Breaking news here, the first amendment does not provide an individual with a right to free speech or religion. Jugheads on the court, the Bill of Rights provides specific limits on the behavior of government idiots. The Bill of Rights says what government cannot do - it assumes individuals have untold rights (read Amendments 9 & 10 for specific reference).

[Dead Corpse]

They've had a couple of cases, Emerson being one of them. They'll just kick it back to the 9th instead of actually doing something.

That would require a spine.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Already posted here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/801566/posts