Court Upholds State Assault Weapons Ban

Los Angeles Times ^ | 12/6/2002 | Henry Weinstein

[Joe Brower]

Court Upholds State Assault Weapons Ban
In a rebuff to the White House, U.S. appellate panel rules that the 2nd Amendment does not give individuals the right to keep and bear arms.br> By Henry Weinstein, Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles Times

December 6, 2002

A federal appeals court upheld California's assault weapons control act Thursday, ruling that there is no constitutional right for individuals to keep and bear arms.

The 3-0 decision, declaring that the 2nd Amendment protects only the right of states to organize and maintain militias, is flatly at odds with the position of the Bush administration and a decision last year by a federal appeals court in New Orleans.

California adopted the nation's most sweeping assault weapons ban in 1999. It prohibits the manufacture, sale or import of weapons including grenade launchers, semiautomatic pistols with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, semiautomatic rifles that use detachable magazines and guns with barrels that can be fitted with silencers.

Click the URL for the rest of the article. Requires free registration, unfortunately...

[Joe Brower]

Not suprisingly, yesterday the ultra-liberal judicial activists of the 9th Circuit have made a ruling that states that there is no individual right to arms stated in the Constitution. These are the same clowns who not so long ago determined the Pledge of Alligence to be unconstitutional because it included the words "Under God". What is most pronounced about this ruling is that one of the three 9th CC judges, Stephen Reinhardt, has seen fit to author a detailed opinion that is in direct contradiction to the 10/16/2001 study authored by Judges Garwood, DeMoss and Parker of the 5th District Court of Appeals when they remanded Judge Sam Cummings opinion in U.S. vs. Emerson.

As Clayton Cramer states on his weblog.

"Reinhardt quotes at length from the one-sided Chicago-Kent Law Review symposium issue published two years ago in which only those opposed to the individual rights view were invited--and paid for their articles. (This is almost unheard in scholarly publications.) Of course, Reinhardt cites the well-known soon-to-be former Professor Michael Bellesiles for support for the collective rights view, apparently unaware or unconcerned about Bellesiles's scholarly integrity problem."

The lines are now more clearly drawn than ever -- one for and one against. The time is ripe for the Supreme Court to step in and decide. Whether or not they will exhibit enough courage and duty to do so is another matter. They can very easily fall back on Solicitor General Olsen's arguments against hearing Emerson to refuse. When one reads and compares the two opinions, it is apparent the strengths of the 5th's pro-gun determination far outweight the weak arguments presented by the 9th in it's anti-freedom stance.

As I have stated before, the issue of whether or not the Second Amendment construes an individual, versus a collective, right needs to be decided by the SCOTUS. Either way, this will result in a win for gun owners -- if the 2A is deemed an individual right, then thousands of oppressive gun laws will be drawn into question and the stage will be set for a long overdue house-cleaning. If SCOTUS states that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms, this will motivate firearms owners into a much larger political body, forming a voting block that no politician can hope to ignore.

The 10/16/2001 decision by the 5th Circuit Court on U.S. vs. Emerson can be found here.

The 12/5/02 decision by the 9th Circuit Appeals Court can be found here.

[Joe Brower]

MWLWN LABE

[Gary Boldwater]

Does this mean that town and county police forces can't carry guns?

[G.Mason]

RKBA?

[WorkingClassFilth]

Maybe our collectivist friends feel that conditions are such that forcing a 2nd Amendment decision from the Supreme Court is a now-or-never proposition. With future propects for liberal bench receding, perhaps they feel that they better spend their political capital (and use their FBI files) to get the decision they want - IOW, collective rights.

[jlogajan]

Where are the "state's rights" crowd on this one???

[Joe Brower]

RKBA = Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

[xsrdx]

California adopted the nation's most sweeping assault weapons ban in 1999.

Not quite, NJ, CT and MA ban possession.

It can get worse.

Repeal or sunset the 94 Crime Bill AW proviso or it WILL get worse.

[Dog Gone]

Where are the "state's rights" crowd on this one???

They are going to be rather quiet on this, unless they support gun confiscation.

The question is two-fold. Does the Second Amendment provide for the RKBA for individuals, and does the Second Amendment apply to the states at all? You don't even have to answer the first question if the answer to the second is no.

[general_re]

Where are the "state's rights" crowd on this one???

I was just wondering the same thing....

[general_re]

The question is two-fold. Does the Second Amendment provide for the RKBA for individuals, and does the Second Amendment apply to the states at all? You don't even have to answer the first question if the answer to the second is no.

LOL. You can keep your guns, but the price is that you have to accept the 14'th Amendment as valid and enforceable. It's a hell of a choice for the states-rights crew... ;)

[goldstategop]

Its rather convenient liberals invoke states' rights to defend collectivist confiscation. Yet these are the same folks that oppose states' rights when it comes to defending private property from increasing federal government encroachment. Go figure.

[general_re]

True. Of course, there is a certain sort of person who might hypothetically oppose states' rights in terms of the power to confiscate guns, but support states' rights when it comes to defending private property. This bus has clowns on both sides of the aisle ;)

Personally, I say take the 14'th and the 2'nd and run with it. Accept the 14'th as a done deal and use the Bill of Rights to protect you from the states as well as the feds. The alternative is to surrender all your guns to the state of California as soon as they work up the will to take them from you.

[LurkedLongEnough]

Yes, Connecticut sure was befuddled when the law passed here and suddenly everyone realized that nuclear power plant guards had to stop carrying assault weapons. That caused some people to reconsider the actual affects of a ban...

[general_re]

I'm re-reading my post, and let me hasten to add that I don't think you're such a person. Sorry about any misunderstanding ;)

[asformeandformyhouse]

Where are the "state's rights" crowd on this one???

Hopefully the ones in California are preparing to move out of state. If every gun-owner in CA voted with their feet, so to speak, then the liberals would be left with a state they've always dreamed of. Let them choke on it.

[NormsRevenge]

When all the legal gun-owners left, the only gun-owners left would be gangs and politicians.

Would you rather have a gun held to your head or a state's mandate to surrender your weapons?

[coloradan]

U.S. appellate panel rules that the 2nd Amendment does not give individuals the right to keep and bear arms.

That's right! The Bill Of Rights doesn't give any rights at all. It merely expresses pre-existing rights. You already have those rights and others, it just lists some of them for the benefit of those who would take them away.

[cruiserman]

Would you rather have a gun held to your head or a state's mandate to surrender your weapons?

I'd rather live in Idaho where no such conundrum exists.

[boris]

Editor
Los Angeles Times

Sir:

Your page-1 story about the inevitable ruling by the 9th circuit court of appeals is a yawner. Nobody expected that pack of feckless "activist judges" to be able to read the Bill of Rights anyway. Their ruling will, in due course, be reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court--as usual. The 9th circuit holds the honor of "most reversed by the Supreme Court" in the nation, and this unconstitutional ruling will only enhance their reputation.

--Boris