Supreme Court Refuses to Confirm Constitutional Right to Bear Arms

NewsMax ^ | 1 December 2003 | staff

[45Auto]

The Supreme Court disappointed gun rights groups Monday by refusing to consider whether the Constitution guarantees people a personal right to own a gun.

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

Although the Bush administration 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 restrictions passed by Congress on assault weapons, he told the court.

The Second Amendment says, "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 guns.

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

One 9th Circuit judge, Alex Kozinski, said the panel was off-base and its "labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it, and is just as likely to succeed." He and some other judges had wanted to reverse the decision.

The decision was written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who said the Supreme Court's guidance on the meaning of the right to bear arms was "not entirely illuminating."

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.

Daniel Schmutter of Paramus, N.J., representing Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, had told the justices in a filing that they should decide "once and for all" what protections gun owners have.

The case is Silveira v. Lockyer, 03-51

[45Auto]

As predicted.....

[Neil E. Wright]

Hey supremes: here's a little something for you assholes to mull over!!!!!

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
REPORT
of the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
of the
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
Second Session
February 1982

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

Click here to read the report BY THE SENATE that finds an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

---

±

"The Era of Osama lasted about an hour, from the time the first plane hit the tower to the moment the General Militia of Flight 93 reported for duty."
Toward FREEDOM

[zeugma]

I'm extremely disheartened by the failure of the supreme court to take this case. One of the main reasons to justify the court's taking a case on is when circuit courts are in disagreement. This is certainly true in this case. The supreme court should have stepped up and made a definitive ruling on whether or not the 2nd is "incorporated" to apply to the states, as well as the issue of if the 2nd does, in fact, refer to an individual right. The court is acting like a bunch weak kneed, wishy-washy, broken down whores who haven't the character or backbone to take on this important constitutional question. What a bunch of weenies. Don't be surprised that when they do finally agree to hear a case on this subject, that they choose the weakest pro-2nd case there is, and use it as a vehicle to rule against the people. In a case a few years ago, the court specifically mentioned the phrase "the people" as used in the second as meaning the same thing in each of the 10 amendments in the bill of rights. I can't remember the exact case, but I need to find it again. If any of you have a citation for same handy, I'd appreciate it.

[45Auto]

More commentary here

[longtermmemmory]

People in power always have to fear RKBA. They live with the fear that "some kook" will shoot them. They have little fear of a revolution, they don't have that much respect for ordinary citizens and they really do consider them sheep. (infultrate a democrat politicians campain and you will see this first hand)

(s) Besides, with 54% of all future lawyers being women, an armed society is far too phalic and "manly". (/s)

[45Auto]

You've hit it dead on: the US SC associate justices are cowards. They can safely take on something as stupid as the University of Michigan Law School admissions policy, or a Texas sodomy case, but when it comes to doing the right thing in a clear case of Circuit discrepancy, they don't have the guts. So now, the 20% of the US population living under the tyrannical umbrella of the 9th Circuit simply don't not have the right to keep and bear. It will be interesting to see if any of the state legislatures under this Circuit will now write a bill banning the possession of guns.

[miloklancy]

More cowardice on the part of the Renquist Court.

[Dante3]

Supreme Sandra Day o'Conner has said that she isn't about to keep her oath and respect the Consitution. It's interntional law that she adores. Can't she be removed for betraying her oath?

[joesnuffy]

Although the Bush administration 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.

RINOS and the elite dont want peons to own guns...much like the royals in Britain...

a Govt that fears armed honest citizens...is to be feared..imo

[45Auto]

I suppose that Supreme Court justices can be impeached, but it would take the US House of Representatives to come up with written charges, just like in the case of Lying Little Bill Clinton. It will never happen.

[Texas Federalist]

If you were Scalia and Thomas, or even the liberal court members, would you want to take this case now, or after O'Connor retires? It's quite possible that the Supreme Court could not muster the four votes to grant cert because neither side is quite sure how the final vote would come out.

For now, I'd rather let the decision of the Fifth Circuit in Emerson stand and the let people of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi continue to enjoy the judicially recognized right to bear arms.

[johnb838]

You're kidding yourself. The SCOTUS doesn't care what the Senate says. All they care about is what International Opinion says.

[johnb838]

Actually, I think if we wait a while we might get some help on the Supreme Court.

[45Auto]

I smell a RAT in this decision not to hear the case. I think that the 9th Circuit, and the California DOJ had prior knowledge that the US SC would turn this one down. The State of California did not bother to submit a brief in support of the 9th Circuit decision when the KABA people filed their amicus briefs; neither did any of the Freedom Hating organizations, like the Brady Boob et al. No, the "fix" was in on this one from the start.

[Ichneumon]

If you were Scalia and Thomas, or even the liberal court members, would you want to take this case now, or after O'Connor retires? It's quite possible that the Supreme Court could not muster the four votes to grant cert because neither side is quite sure how the final vote would come out.

That is *exactly* my conclusion as well.

[Bedford Forrest]

For the present it appears that even the the worst lefties among the Supremes, e.g., Brayer, Buzzy and the Strange One from New Hampshire, are unwilling to put themselves in company with an evil fascist like Reinhardt. In short, the present majority very much would like to dispense with our God given right to keep and bear arms, but they are also aware of which way the political winds are blowing as one state after another enacts shall issue laws and puts a stop to the strike suits against firearms manufacturers. [For example, let us always remember Spitzer's [NY State AG] arrogant abuse of power against the distributors during the Klinton/Kuomo/Smith & Wesson episode] This temporary setback stems from the fact that on many issues, including the true purpose and effect of the 2nd Amendment, the present majority is fighting a bitter rearguard action and handing down some truly misguided opinions. In fact, we should be thankful that even for them, the Reinhardt opinion brought home the fascist stench and rabid dishonesty of all those creatures who support the unsupportable collectivist notion of the 2nd Amendment. In these circumstances, all that we can hope for realistically is a huge landslide with a hefty pickup of Senate seats next November. Following which wonderous event Dubya will have the opportunity to reform the Court with people who will follow, not pervert, the Constitution.

[SCWard]

Meanwhile, in Congress,

http://www.bushmaster.com/bill.asp

[Congressman Billybob]

As I know from experience, with normal cases the Supreme Court takes about 0.5% of all the cases offered to it for possible review. However, there is an exception to that general rule.

When the Circuit Courts have reached differing interpretations of the same constitutional provision, the Supreme Court almost always takes one of the cases. The reason is the "traffic cop" aspect of the Supreme Court's role. The federal constitution cannot mean one thing for some Americans and another for other Americans, depending on where they happen to live.

After the Emerson case from Texas and the Silviera case from California, that was the exact situation that had occurred. In states governed by the former Circuit Court, the 2nd Amendment DOES grant an individual enforceable right. In states governed by the latter Circuit, the 2nd Amendment does NOT grant an individual enforceable right.

The Supreme Court should have taken one or the other of these cases, in order to resolve the conflict between the Circuits. That the Court took neither case indicated two things most clearly. 1) The Court does not intend to "preserve and protect" the whole Constitution including the 2nd Amendment. And, 2) at least six Justices of the Supreme Court are cowards (since it takes only four Justices to agree to take a case).

I am ashamed of the the Court this day. And I am fearful for the Constitution itself.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "False Reporting on the Medicare Vote," discussion thread. FOR A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.

[caltrop]

I agree this isn't the SC I'd like to see deciding a 2nd Amendment case. OTOH, I don't know where Gonzales stands on this issue. I'd like to hear from somebody who does.

[MrFreedom]

THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/516731/posts