Posted on 12/02/2003 12:59:42 PM PST by 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.
Our grandchildren must be spared from this madness of the left....
Semper Fi
Figure it out from the existing precedents: following the deaths of less than a hundred mostly-innocents at WACO, the federal government lost much of its support and credibility with a large proportion of the American people, and if they are to be believed, inspired a decorated Gulf War veteran to blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City, killing a few feds in response, as well as more poor damn innocents.
In Finland, the fury of the dour but usually easygoing Finns was unleashed after more than 1500 were killed by the Reds. Should anything approaching that number ever occur in this country, expect that the events that follow will develop a momentum of their own that won't be stopped.
For likely details, consult the following.
Semper Fi, AND Semper Paratus. And Semper Vigilans, as well.
-archy-/-
I can dig up numerous qoutes from the Founders if you'd like, but here is my favorite from an ex-President.
"No Free Man shal be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson
The sum total of what it says is, "In later opinions, chiefly Presser v. Illinois and Miller v. Texas the Supreme Court adhered to the view (of Cruikshank). Cruikshank has clearly been superseded by twentieth century opinions which hold that portions of the Bill of Rights — and in particular the right to assembly with which Cruikshank dealt in addition to the Second Amendment — are binding upon the state governments. Given the legislative history of the Civil Rights Acts and the Fourteenth Amendment, and the more expanded views of incorporation which have become accepted in our own century, it is clear that the right to keep and bear arms was meant to be and should be protected under the civil rights statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment against infringement by officials acting under color of state law."
So what your link is saying is that despite three (3) USSC rulings (looks like I missed one), the author is of the opinion that the second amendment was meant to be and should be binding upon the states.
Yeah, right. And I am of the opinion that I was meant to be, and should be, rich and handsome. Whoop de do.
3. The government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.
4. The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes, with the obligation on the part of the States to afford it protection, existed long before the adoption of the Constitution. The first amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting Congress from abridging the right to assemble and petition, was not intended to limit the action of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the national government alone. It left the authority of the States unimpaired, added nothing to the already existing powers of the United States, and guaranteed the continuance of the right only against Congressional interference. The people, for their protection in the enjoyment of it, must, therefore, look to the States, where the power for that purpose was originally placed.
5. The right of the people peaceably to assemble, for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for any thing else connected with the powers or duties of the national government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of and guaranteed by the United States. The very idea of a government republican in form implies that right, and an invasion of it presents a case within the sovereignty of the United States.
6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.
You are trying to twist a decision that is based on natural rights and/or unenumerated rights into supporting anti-RKBA laws at the state and local level - something explicitly contradicted by the language above.
But such gymnastics are expected from someone who can them immediately turn around and claim that, the Prohibition amendment notwithstanding, you can read authorization for the Drug War into the U.S. Constitution.
And if you find my inference that you are on the Drug War gravy train insulting, how about you admit or deny it?
Ah, but instead you are an ugly old narc parroting the line of the gun grabbers.
Keep on spinning. You look like a top at this point.
The underlined quote by the USSC in Cruikshank is what is relevant to this discussion. The rest of your post is garbage filler pap.
The report says that the second amendment does indeed only apply to Congress (as determined by no less than three USSC rulings) -- just that the author feels that it shouldn't.
Hmm. Sounds just like your pathetic argument.
You lying little asshole.
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.
Pathetic? Conversing with you is a lot like removing the cowflop from the bottom of my boots.
It depends on the state constitution. For example, the Illinois State Constitution reads:
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
For comparison, the Indiana State Constitution reads:
Section 32. Arms--Right to bear
Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.
The California State Constitution (and five other states' constitutions) say nothing about the RKBA. The state legislature can pass any restrictive law they think they can get away with. They are still elected officials, so I doubt they'll do anything crazy. But they could.
The conclusion is inescapable? You believe that? Why, because it says so?
If it were indeed inescapable, people wouldn't be arguing about it, now would they? It's an opinion, jerkoff.
Second, and most important, you quote, "as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification".
Interpretation by every major commentator? Ooh, I'm so impressed.
Interpretation by every court in the first half century? What is that, two state cases? One in 1822 and one in 1833? Puhleeze.
Unlike your reading comprehension skills, or the lack thereof, the rest of us have no problem determining the meaning of the Second Amendment by a plain reading. Just because leftist gun grabbing worms like yourself wet themselves at the thought of losing power, is no reason for "We the People" to continue to allow you to trample our Rights.
If it were indeed inescapable, people wouldn't be arguing about it, now would they? It's an opinion, jerkoff.
There are those who want the freedom to protect themselves and their property. There are those who read what the Founders wrote in their papers and in the Constitution and understand the importance of the Second Amendment.
And then there are people like you who sh!t themselves over the idea that they would lose their job should such a strict constructionist view ever gain popularity again. It'd just ruin your little socialist playbook now wouldn't it?
Interpretation by every major commentator? Ooh, I'm so impressed.
Yes. Commentators like Washington. Jefferson. Franklin. Story. Locke. More recently Holbrooke, Lott, Hatch, and hundreds of others.
Kinda leaves you, Sarah Brady, and Lockyer feeling kinda lonely doesn't it?
Interpretation by every court in the first half century? What is that, two state cases? One in 1822 and one in 1833? Puhleeze.
Lack of reading comprehension again chuckle-head. The article compiled by the Congressmen in '82 listed 22 serperate cases including Cruikshank and a correct interpretation of Miller.
Like right here:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Also,
Art 1. Sec 31. Para h
This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.
There is more, but the above is more than enough to shoot down the Ninth Circuits ruling, Lockyers endless yammerings, as well as your own delusional stupidity.
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.