High Court Won't Review Ban on Assault Weapons [declared no individual constitutional right]

Findlaw ^ | Reuters

[tpaine]

High Court Won't Review Ban on Assault Weapons

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a ruling that upheld California's ban on assault weapons and declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun.

Without comment, the justices let stand the ruling by a U.S. appeals court in San Francisco that the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms.

The ruling differed from the position taken by the Justice Department under Attorney General John Ashcroft, who changed the government's long-standing policy, and by a federal appeals court in New Orleans that ruled that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms.

California enacted the nation's most sweeping assault weapons ban in 1999, amending legislation adopted 10 years earlier. The state legislature amended the law to ban assault weapons based on a host of features, instead of specific makes and models.

A group of individuals who own assault weapons or want to buy them challenged the law, saying it violated the Second Amendment and other constitutional rights.

A federal judge dismissed the constitutional claims, and the appeals court agreed in upholding the law.

The appeals court said the Second Amendment protected the gun rights of militias, not individuals. The Second 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." Gary Gorski, an attorney for those challenging the law, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying the Constitution protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms without the threat of state confiscation or compulsory registration.

The National Rifle Association supported the appeal.

[tpaine]

"The U.S. Supreme Court declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun." -- Bet me....

[Orangedog]

read later

[NeoCaveman]

The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a ruling that upheld California's ban on assault weapons and declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun.
Without comment, the justices let stand the ruling by a U.S. appeals court in San Francisco that the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms.

How did the Supreme Court declare anything when they declined without comment. The two statements are inherently contradictory. Nice of Rueters to try to spin it, though.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[Old Sarge]

Jesus H. Christ!

Which one dies NEXT?!?

[rintense]

This is crap. Complete crap. Like I said yesterday... who did our fore fathers have in mind when creating the second amendment? The government? How does one revolt against a country and not allow the individual the right to keep and bear arms???? If they think the second amendment does not apply to the individual, then which groups does it apply to? Their non-ruling sets up challenges to every single amendment being about a collective group- not the individual. God Lord, this is socialism!

The SCOTUS are extremely dense and lacking common sense. Instead of sitting on their appointed thrones, they need to come back down to earth and realize that yes, they too, are Americans just like everyone else.

Bastards.

[eno_]

I wonder which side of this issue Scalia, who alos seems never to to have heard of unenumerated rights, came down on?

[Jeff Head]

80+ million Americans say we do have that right, as does the clear language of the 2nd amendment.

Who are they going to send to enforce this blatant, oath-breaking ruling?

That's where this ultimatley leads if they keep pushing it.

[coloradan]

The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a ruling that upheld California's ban on assault weapons and declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun.

This sentence is ingeniously poorly worded.

Which of the following meanings will most Sheeple take it to mean, and which does it actually mean?

1. The U.S. Supreme Court (A) declined on Monday to review a ruling that upheld California's ban on assault weapons and (B) declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun.

or

2. The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a ruling that (A) upheld California's ban on assault weapons and (B) declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun.

My money says the actual meaning is (2), but most Sheeple will think it says (1). And the criminals at Reuters know this and intend this.

[coloradan]

The gun grabbers at Reuters sure know how to turn a phrase. See my previous post in this thread.

[JohnGalt]

I have read a lot about this case in recent days, so maybe some folks can help.

On the grounds of Federalism, perhaps the court is saying that the Second Amendment prohibits the federalis from regulating fire arms, however, the states can decide for themselves how to regulate firearms.

That would make sense to me.

The problem or contradiction here (well really, the absurdity) is that the Supreme Court took up a case and overturned a local law on sodomy.

How do the two positions fit?

Well, they don't in any logical sense.

[MamaTexan]

there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun

Technically, they're right.

There is no constitutional right to own a gun.

It's an inalienable one.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

Text of the Second Amendment
"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."

Anyone who actually reads AND understands the 2nd Amendment will see that there is no need or authority for any type of gun registration and there is no need for anyone to have to apply for a license to carry a gun.
Any political party, politician, judge (etc), organization or individual who trys to convince you that:
1) you must register a firearm
2) you must pass a background check
3) you must wait (x) amount of days before you can get your firearm
4) you need to have a license to carry a gun
is either uneducated about OUR rights as citizens
OR is actively working to undermine OUR country.

How Did the Founders Understand the Second Amendment?

CONGRESS in 1866, 1941 and 1986 REAFFIRMS THE SECOND AMENDMENT
The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment right to keep and bear firearms,
originated in the United States Congress in 1789 before being ratified by the States.
On three occasions since then--in 1866, 1941, and 1986--
Congress enacted statutes to reaffirm this guarantee of personal freedom
and to adopt specific safeguards to enforce it.

ON THE DAY BEFORE Thanksgiving 1993,
the 103d US Congress brought forth a constitutional turkey.
The 103d Congress decided that the Second Amendment did not mean what it said
("...shall not be infringed") and passed the Brady bill.
How the Brady Bill Passed (and subsequently - "Instant Check")
When the Brady Bill was passed into law on November 24, 1993,
the Senate voted on the Conference Report
and passed the Brady Bill by UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

[Jeff Head]

You are correct...but the ruling in California stands and will spread from there.

[Dead Corpse]

No. the Second Amendment restricts the States as well. What good would it be if it was otherwise? You'd get precisely the situation we have in Cali.

For reference see Art II Sec. 4, and the 10th and 14th Amendments.

[NeoCaveman]

The gun grabbers at Reuters sure know how to turn a phrase. See my previous post in this thread.

Yes they do. See #3.

[E.G.C.]

BTT!!!!!!

[JohnGalt]

The 14th is not a 'real' Amendment, but it seems the federalis are selectively deciding when it applies and when it doesn't, that was my point.

As to your over all point, the Bill of Rights is a list, or really, a reiteration of things the federalis cannot do, that is all.

It clearly is no good to hope that the federalis will protect rights within your state but they will over turn laws that they don't like as with the Lawrence case.

[MeanWestTexan]

In reality (as opposed to Rueterville), the US Supreme Court merly "denied cert." By law and precedent, it means nothing, other than the Supreme Court had other things to do, besides deal with this matter, was too hot at that time, or, more likely, wanted the lower courts to flesh out the ruling.

It will eventually deal with this matter, however, as there is a clear split. The "court in New Orleans" was the 5th Circuit, a co-equal, and much more respected by actual lawyers and jurist (as opposed to law professors and "journalist"), court than the 9th Circus, the most reversed and un-followed court in the country.

In short, this is a big yawn.