[CFW]

U.S. Supreme Court sidesteps gun case



Washington — The U.S. Supreme Court disappointed gun-rights groups on Monday, refusing to consider whether the U.S. Constitution guarantees people a personal right to own a gun.

The court has never said if the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” applies to individuals.

Although the federal administration of President George W. Bush has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, it did not encourage the justices to resolve the issue in this case involving a challenge of California laws banning high-powered weapons.

Many other groups wanted the court to take the politically charged case, including the National Rife Association, the Pink Pistols, a group of gay and lesbian gun owners; the Second Amendment Sisters; Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws, and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

“Citizens need the Second Amendment for protection of their families, homes and businesses,” lawyer Gary Gorski of Fair Oaks, Calif., wrote in the appeal filed on behalf of his rugby teammates and friends.

The challengers included a police SWAT officer, a Purple Heart recipient, a former Marine sniper, a parole officer, a stockbroker and others with varied political views.

Timothy Rieger, California's deputy attorney-general, said the case involved regulations on “rapid-fire rifles and pistols that have been used on California's school grounds to kill children.”

Even if the challengers won, there are virtually identical national assault weapons restrictions passed by Congress, he told the court.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: “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.”

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 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 firearms.

Justices refused without comment to review the 9th Circuit decision.

The high court's last major gun case was in 1939, when justices upheld a federal law prohibiting the interstate transport of sawed-off shotguns.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...Justices refused without comment to review the 9th Circuit decision...

They are a bunch of cowardly wankers and were we living in a Republic, they would all be impeached.

[abner]

Here is a story.

[Imal]

Timothy Rieger, California's deputy attorney-general, said the case involved regulations on “rapid-fire rifles and pistols that have been used on California's school grounds to kill children.”

It's reassuring to see such level-headed thinking in government officials, as opposed to breathless, irresponsible sensationalism.

After all, only a villainous, self-serving pompous ass would use misdirection and hyperbole to promote unconstitutional legislation.