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.

[archy]

The big question in any American CWII is what will the foriegn involvement be. The overall wealth of the USA will attract the carion feeders and they will be quick to put in troops.

Entirely possible and particularly a factor if the eventual result of a CWII is essentially a Soviet Union-styly breakup of the United States into a group of three to six federated regional nation-states, probably not dissimilar from the Italian city-states of Machiavelli's day.

It may well be more bloody than Finland and I for one do not think it will be another generation before it happens. The left will not wait.

I expect that the left will pick at scabs until arterial bleeding results. So far as the results being as extreme here as they were in Finland of a near-century ago, there are many different factors that could tip the scales either way. I hope you are wrong but I'm afraid you are not. Hope for the best, expect the worst.

-archy-/-

[harpseal]

Some of the factors that tend to make any CWII here even more bloody include the fact that the USA has far less of stable population with local family ties than Finland at this time. There is less reason to forgive and forget becuase of the long history of family proximity and intermarrying. Further, the stresses built up in our population seem even greater than the Finnish precedent.

[Travis McGee]

I think that U.S. geography and demographics will make any CW2 much more chaotic, and it will take on tremendously different characteristics in different areas.

I certainly would not want to be in a minority status within a gas tank drive of a major city, that's for sure. "Enclaves" of affluent whites will really pay the price.

[Travis McGee]

Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is very interested in you."

The war he was referring to was the Russian Civil War, where he was the leader of the Red Army.

[robertpaulsen]

"This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land ... and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby ... any Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

This is known as the Supremacy Clause. In simple terms, it means, "No matter what laws are passed by any state, if there is a conflict, the laws written and protections granted under this constitution are supreme."

This refutes nothing. The second amendment only applies to the federal government.

[Bernard Marx]

we can get a group of people together and have the right for the group to own guns ??

Catch 22. Only state-sanctioned militias are "legal."

[ZULU]

The Supreme Court refused to review the decision of a lower Court on this issue.

If I recall my basic History Courses, this, like the recent inaction of the Supremes on the Ten Commandments Case, amounts to a non-statement by the Court on this particular issue, i.e., they neither support or oppose the action of the lower Federal Court. By refusing to hear the case, they do not necessarily endorse it.

In effect, by not hearing a case, the Supreme Court is making one of a number of two implications:

1) Their case load is too high and they feel the issue does not merit their attention as compared with other items on the agenda; or,

2) They will be compelled by all logic and the Constitution itself to render a decision with which they personally would disagree.

George Bush, if he wins re-election and the Republicnas gain substantial control of the Congress, should PACK the Supreme Court with conservative, original intent Justices.
That is the ONLY way to counter the evil influences of Sandra Day O'Connor and Kennedy - the two traitors, Bader-Ginsberg, Breyer, Stevens - the leftist creeps, and Souter - the misogynostic freak.

[Travis McGee]

EFAD is set in an undefined time, but you could guess 2005 and be about right.

Domestic Enemies will be set at an undefined time about 2010. That will be the period of internal turmoil as CW2 really starts cranking.

Foreign Enemies will then be about 2015. That's when the desperate 'rat President invites in foreign mercenary "peacekeepers," putting them in American uniforms with a promise of citizenship and land.

These foreign troops won't even speak English, much less know or care about the Bill of Rights.

[archy]

we can get a group of people together and have the right for the group to own guns ??

Catch 22. Only state-sanctioned militias are "legal."

Their votes will be the only ones that count as to whether a state attempting to deliver such edicts is legal itself. By their acts shall ye know them.

-archy-/-

[Maelstrom]

With the exception of the ninth and tenth amendments, the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution was written to establish and guarantee the relationship between the federal government and its citizens.

You have a different definition?

YEAH As per ratification documents, the Bill of Rights is the contract by which several states signed onto the Constitution. As per documented in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, the Bill of Rights is a redundant measure to ensure that our Constitution is understood as one of strictly enumerated powers.

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

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 ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in
Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed
to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all,
or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all
intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

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.

[Maelstrom]

Private militia organizations are explicitly outlawed in most states.

In NY & NJ you are automatically considered a terrorist to boot.

[Dead Corpse]

"No matter what laws are passed by any state, if there is a conflict, the laws written and protections granted under this constitution are supreme."

Must be cognitive dissonance on your part. There is a clear conflict between gun bans, State and Federal, and an ennumerated Right to own firearms.

Refuted with your own words. Not the first time I've seen that happen on FR. Unfortunately, I know from experience that you will just jam your fingers in your ears a little bit deeper.

[Maelstrom]

The second amendment is not noted as being restricted to applying to the federal government in the way the 1st Amendment is.

Your interpretation is wrong.

[adaven]

Very nice. I hope you don't mind, but I just put that on my profile page!

[ZULU]

No. The Seocnd Amendment applies to the people.

The Constitution is quite clear in defining rights or powers as to the People, the Federal GOvernment, or the States.

The Second Amendment clearly states that the right of the people, not the individual states, or even the state militias, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[Dead Corpse]

In fact, it quite clearly states that BECAUSE "We the People" are the militia, we should always keep and use our own arms. "All the terrible implements of war" as one Founder put it. Swords, cannons, knives, man-o-war type ships, were all privately owned as were the rifle's they put food on the table with.

[Maelstrom]

The militia is defined as able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45.

It is a sub-class of the people.

You are essentially still correct, however.

[robertpaulsen]

"There is a clear conflict between gun bans, State and Federal,"

Only in your mind.

The second amendment says that the RKBA shall not be infinged by the federal government. They may be (and are) infringed by the states. Some states allow CCW, some don't. Illinois requires a Firearm Owners' ID card to purchase a gun or even to purchase ammunition. Other states don't. Some cities (acting under state constitutions) even ban the ownership of guns.

So, in the real world, it all makes sense and there is no conflict, clear or otherwise.

But, your fantasy world has no explanation for this. A conflict arises in your fantasy world. Your only explanation is, "The states and cities are acting unconstitutionally!", whatever that means. You can't point to one ruling, one case, one finding, that supports your claim. You just "feel like" it's unconstitutional.

Well, la-di-dah.

[Maelstrom]

No, it says that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed, period.

It says that CONGRESS may not violage the right to assemble, the right to worship, the Free Press, nor establish a state religion.

The states MAY violate your 1st Amendment rights. They may NOT violate your 2nd Amendment rights.

And this difference is going to be the spark that begins a civil war in the US.

[ZULU]

I agree - totally.

The Supreme Court must be dealt with. The only acceptable solutions are either impeachment or "packinig" the court with more Judges - conservative judges.