9th Short Circut Court

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals personifies the Metcalf bromide. "Some people just don't want to be confused with FACTS that contradict their preconceived opinions or prejudices...." And so once again THE most overturned court in the land cranks out a 72-page ruling stating the Second Amendment only guarantees the rights of states to organize a militia.

In 1943 Supreme Court Justice Jackson wrote, the very purpose of a Bill of Rights, "was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." The 9th Circuit disagrees.

In the wake of the latest 9th Circuit robed bozos revisionist interpretations I have been flooded with a collective of screams and gnashing of teeth (most of which is inappropriate to print). However, I remain less daunted than most of my Second Amendment defending brethren.

The 5th Circuit ruling (which has become known as the Emerson decision) UPHOLDS an individual's right to possess a weapon.

Liberal left icon and Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe had an epiphany and begrudgingly admits he had been wrong (a commendable thing for him to do). Tribe has recognized that the Second Amendment DOES acknowledge an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

The LANGUAGE, syntax and content of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights cannot/should not be ignored. "The People" really does mean "the people" and despite Clintonesque parsing of new politically correct interpretation and definition of words "is" means "is" and "the people" means "the people". "Shall not" does not mean "maybe, sometimes, or it depends".

There is a significant opportunity for potential unintended consequences to drive a final nail in the gun control wackos coffin.

For YEARS, many of us fighting the gun control jihad have been begging for the United States Supreme Court to rule on the question of individual versus collective rights. Despite the protestations and rhetoric of the liberal left, the facts (as even Laurence Tribe recognized) do not support their moist dream.

The 9th Circuit myopia may well compel the Supremes to do what they have successfully avoided for decades.

The 9th Circuit IS the most overturned court in the country. Those bay area limousine liberals maintain their politically correct heads SO far in rectal defilade it would require major surgery to extricate them.

So NOW we have two Circuit Courts with rulings that are diametrically opposite. Hey, how are the poor huddled masses supposed to decide which court is right and which is wrong? They can't both be right!

Well, THIS boys and girls is the classic opportunity (if not requirement) for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide.

The judicial activism of the 9th Circuit is consistent with what the gun grabbers have been telling us all along.

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. said, "We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily -given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal."

M. Gartner, then President of NBC News, told USA - Today, "I now think the only way to control handgun use is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution."

First Amendment law professor at UCLA School of Law Eugene Volokh wrote an excellent piece in National Review on this controversy.

However scholarly refutation of p.c. posturing notwithstanding the reality is the 9th Circuit ruling is taking a knife to a gunfight. Beyond the factual and constitutional flaws of their ruling it invites massive non-compliance that would rival the Volstead Act.

We are at war. Terrorists have pledged to assault our "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" and yet robed sycophants conspire to provide the enemy unarmed victims. "We have met the enemy and he is US."

If the Supremes prove malfeasant the result will be massive non-compliance and an increase in the shadow class of law-abiding criminals.

About the Author Federal Observer contributor Geoff Metcalf is a veteran media performer. He has had an eclectic professional background covering a wide spectrum of radio, television, magazine, and newspapers. A former Green Beret and retired Army officer he is in great demand as a speaker. Metcalf has hosted his radio talk show on the ABC/Disney owned and operated KSFO and in worldwide syndication. Visit Geoff's Web Site.

H.R.1752

Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2000 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

`Sec. 464. Carrying of firearms by judicial officers

`(a) AUTHORITY- A judicial officer of the United States is authorized to carry a firearm, whether concealed or not, under regulations promulgated by the Judicial Conference of the United States. The authority granted by this section shall extend only--

`(1) to those States in which the carrying of firearms by judicial officers of the State is permitted by State law; or

`(2) regardless of State law, to any State in which the judicial officer of the United States sits, resides, or is present on official travel status.

`(b) IMPLEMENTATION-

`(1) REGULATIONS- The regulations promulgated by the Judicial Conference under subsection (a) shall--

`(A) require a demonstration of a judicial officer's proficiency in the use and safety of firearms as a prerequisite to carrying of firearms under the authority of this section; and

`(B) ensure that the carrying of a firearm by a judicial officer under the protection of the United States Marshals Service while away from United States courthouses is consistent with Marshals Service policy on carrying of firearms by persons receiving such protection.

`(2) ASSISTANCE BY OTHER AGENCIES- At the request of the Judicial Conference, the Attorney General and appropriate law enforcement components of the Department of Justice shall assist the Judicial Conference in developing and providing training to assist judicial officers in securing the proficiency referred to in paragraph (1).

`(c) DEFINITION- For purposes of this section, the term `judicial officer of the United States' means--

`(1) a justice or judge of the United States as defined in section 451 in regular active service or retired from regular active service;

`(2) a justice or judge of the United States who has been retired from the judicial office under section 371(a) for--

`(A) no longer than a 1-year period following such justice's or judge's retirement; or

`(B) a longer period of time if approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States when exceptional circumstances warrant;

`(3) a United States bankruptcy judge;

`(4) a full-time or part-time United States magistrate judge;

`(5) a judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims;

`(6) a judge of the United States District Court of Guam;

`(7) a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands;

`(8) a judge of the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands; or

`(9) an individual who is retired from one of the judicial positions described under paragraphs (3) through (8) to the extent provided for in regulations of the Judicial Conference of the United States.

`(d) EXCEPTION- Notwithstanding section 46303(c)(1) of title 49, nothing in this section authorizes a judicial officer of the United States to carry a dangerous weapon on an aircraft or other common carrier.'.

(b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS-

(1) The table of sections for chapter 21 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--

(A) in the item relating to section 452, by striking `power' and inserting `powers'; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

`464. Carrying of firearms by judicial officers.'.

(2) The section heading for section 453 of title 28, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.