"Give me liberty or give me death."

Nobody knows what that damned preamble means, and no one's interpretation is any better nor any worse, more valid nor invaild than anyone else's. So the Ninth Circuit can just take their's, and go to hell.

The body of the Second Ammedment, however, is clear.

Note also that I didn't have to obtain any permit to say so.

Yes - our founding fathers were worried that the federal government would be able to confiscate the weapons of the National Guard.

The National Guard's weapons are property of the federal government, and the National Guard becomes part of the federal government's army, by simple declaration.

A Dr. Strangeglove moment. ;-)

Now that the 9th has chimed in on this matter, I guess the feds can come get my guns. By the way, fellas, bring body bags, lot's of body bags.

Thomas Sowell had a great idea in one of his columns: let's cut each 9th Circus judge in half. That suits me just fine.

The ninth does get it. They are communist, dude.

My daaughter is a first year law student at the University of Oklahoma. She says that her Consitutional Law Professor told her class that the Ninth always gets it wrong.

Let us hope that she gets it right.

The ninth doesn't always get it wrong. They get it right nearly 5% of the time.

Thomas Sowell had a great idea in one of his columns: let's cut each 9th Circus judge in half

I think Sowell's plan was to cut the 9th circuit into two districts. But I think I like your plan ("cut each judge in half") better... :)

The Ninth certainly can't get it right:

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

Samuel Adams

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American."

Tench Coxe 2/20/1788

All I can say is that if Kali ever bans guns, I hope (not advocate, but hope) that these girly-men on the bench in Kalifornia are the first to get treated like the Redcoats at Lexington & Concord.

I think Sowell's plan was to cut the 9th circuit into two districts. But I think I like your plan ("cut each judge in half") better... :)

How about fourths? As in "drawn and quartered."

ctrl

<-- Chronological -->

Find

<-- Thread -->

[CTRL] Showdown looming on right to own guns / Assault weapons ban upheld, putting court at odds with Ashcroft

From: Euphorian
Subject: [CTRL] Showdown looming on right to own guns / Assault weapons ban upheld, putting court at odds with Ashcroft
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 14:29:58 -0800

-Caveat Lector-

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/12/06/MN211218.DTL

       www.sfgate.com       Return to regular view

Showdown looming on right to own guns
Assault weapons ban upheld, putting court at odds with Ashcroft
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, December 6, 2002
©2002 San Francisco Chronicle.

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/12/06/MN211218.DTL

A federal appeals court upheld California's ban on military-style assault weapons 
Thursday,
ruling that individuals have no constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The Constitution's Second Amendment preserves only the right of states to organize and
maintain militias, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in a 
3-0
decision.

The ruling put the court at odds with the Bush administration and a decision last year 
by a
federal appeals court in New Orleans.

The amendment "was adopted to ensure that effective state militias would be maintained,
thus preserving the people's right to bear arms," wrote Judge Stephen Reinhardt. "The
amendment was not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with respect to 
private
gun ownership or possession."

STAGE SET FOR HIGH COURT ACTION

The ruling paves the way for the controversial issue to be addressed by the nation's 
highest
court, which has not touched the topic since 1939.

"When you have something like the Ninth Circuit, the largest judicial federal circuit 
in the
country, coming out with a ruling like this, it means we're within a couple years of 
it coming
before the Supreme Court," said Peter Keane, dean of the Golden Gate University Law
School. "Because it's a hot issue, the Supreme Court hasn't wanted to deal with it."

The state Legislature passed the nation's most sweeping assault weapons ban in 1989,
outlawing 75 high-powered weapons that have rapid-fire capabilities. The ban was
expanded in 1999 to include copycat weapons with similar features.

The original version was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2000, when it was
challenged by a group of gun rights activists who said the ban violated the Second
Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause and several other constitutional provisions.

Reinhardt said he concluded that the Second Amendment cannot be used to strike down the
ban after a lengthy analysis of the amendment's history and text. The 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."

His interpretation of the amendment's intent matched that of the federal government's
before Attorney General John Ashcroft wrote a letter to the National Rifle Association 
in
May. In the letter, Ashcroft declared that the Second Amendment protected the 
individual
right to bear arms. The Justice Department took that position formally in a U.S. 
Supreme
Court filing a year later, saying the right was subject to "reasonable restrictions" 
on certain
types of weapons and categories of owners.

Ashcroft's views were endorsed by a federal appeals court in New Orleans in October 
2001.
Despite concluding that the Constitution protected an individual's right to bear arms, 
the
court upheld a federal law banning gun possession by people under restraining orders 
for
domestic violence.

Because the issue has become so debated, Reinhardt chose to address it with a
comprehensive opinion instead of relying on a similar decision rendered by the court 
six
years ago.

Matthew Nosanchuk, senior litigation counsel for the Violence Policy Center in 
Washington,
told the Los Angeles Times that the 86-page ruling was one of the most comprehensive
ever written on the Second Amendment.

"This is a very important contribution that should drive a stake through the heart of 
the
individual rights position," Nosanchuk said.

RULING REJECTS 9 CHALLENGES

In Thursday's decision, Reinhardt expressly disagreed with the Second Amendment
interpretations by Ashcroft and the New Orleans court. He also noted that the San 
Francisco
court, which oversees federal courts in nine Western states, had ruled in 1996 that the
Constitution does not protect individual gun ownership.

The ruling rejected challenges to the law by nine gun owners. The court then went a 
step
further and broadened the law by striking down an exemption that allowed retired police
officers to own assault weapons, ruling that it served no public purpose.

The NRA expressed disappointment with the ruling.

"For 131 years, we've been standing steadfastly to protect the freedoms of all law- 
abiding
Americans and stand steadfastly that the Second Amendment is an individual right and 
will
continue to do so," spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said.

Chronicle news services contributed to this report. / E-mail Bob Egelko at
begelko@sfchronicle.com.

©2002 San Francisco Chronicle.  Page A - 1

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
CTRL@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM</A>

http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
 <A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] LISTSERV@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] LISTSERV@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

Om

[CTRL] Showdown looming on right to own guns / Assault weapons ban upheld, putting court at odds with Ashcroft, Euphorian

<-- Chronological -->

<-- Thread -->

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights

ken

Effective December 15, 1791
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

End the deception.

Know Your Rights
http://www.harbornet.com/rights/lindat.html

Let us hope that she gets it right.

Oh she does. She has even had the guts to argue her Pro-life beliefs in her classes. (and no one else had the nerve) From what I hear of the Constitutional Law professor he is not a liberal and that is a good thing.

Nobody knows what that damned preamble means, and no one's interpretation is any better nor any worse, more valid nor invaild than anyone else's

The so called "preamble" is derived from earlier language, submitted by state conventions, or in state constitutions. The original language made it clear that a standing army was dangerous to the people's rights, and the best defense of a free people/state lies in the militia, that is the people themselves in arms. Failing prevention of creation of a standing army, which was clearly allowed by the Constitution and which might actually be necessary, as it became in the 1812 period for example, the militia was to act as a check on the power of those who controlled that army.

That's one interpretation.

The Supreme Court has summarily reversed the Ninth Circuit in per curiam, unsigned opinions without argument at least four times this term (including three times in one day!) They need to develop an expedited process for reviewing Reinhardt opinions.