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.
Regards...
The Constitution was ratified in 1789. So the "in the first half century after its ratification" would take us to 1839.
So the author is saying "every court case from 1789 to 1839". According to you, that's two (not 22) miserable, minor state cases that had nothing whatsoever to do with the second amendment being applied to the states.
This is an empty, exaggerated claim! And you just accept it! Just like you make up your own "commentators". As though their "opinion" matters in a court of law.
You need stonger meds.
WTF??? This section has to do with civil rights, not arms!
SEC. 31.
(a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
You're wasting my time. Go home.
As the California Assualt Weapons ban, the 9th Circuit Court covering California, and the Californians being denied their CIVIL RIGHT to own firearms of their choice, it is all applicable.
Or it would be if you didn't have a vested interest in keeping your fellow citizens disarmed.
At least I'm back my assertions up with other sources. You are just talking out your a$$.
Only in that section! It was very clear about that. And it had nothing to do with the RKBA.
It has EVERYTHING to do when considering the Primacy of our Rights ennumerated in the US Constutition and the States inability to infringe on those basic Rights.
Then what good is the 2nd Amendment?
Sure he will. It would be nice if President Bush would fight for his Judges, as he did for the Medicare/Medicine Bill.
Robert, the second amendment guarantees a right to individuals. Rights only accrue to indivduals. Powers and privileges accrue to individuals, states and the federal government.
The first clue in the second amendment that should have tipped you off is the word "right". The second clue would have been the failure of the 2A to mention Congress or the States.
Being clueless, I guess you just didn't figure those issues out. I would suggest you use an open book next time.
Not true, the new Constitution put limitations on the state's powers as well. See particularly Art IV sections 1 and 2, and the 10th amendment which affects states by it's terms.
Some Courts, the Georgia Supreme Court for example, ruled that the Second Amendment restricted the states as well. (Nunn v. State, 1 Kelly 243 (Ga. 1846)). Some commentators as stated this as well. William Rawle, possibly the original "Philadelphia lawyer", who was appointed United States Attorney for Pennsylvania by President George Washington, wrote:
The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, 2nd Ed. 1829
The book cited was an early work in the field of American constitutional law which was adopted as a textbook at West Point and other institutions. The Quote is taken from CHAPTER X entitled: "OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF CONGRESS AND ON THE EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF STATES AND SECURITY TO THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS."
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.