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.
You finally got your masters mantra down pat. Congrats.
What is this the Spanish Inquisition?
You chant the mantas of the 'states rights' movement, I call you a statist. -- Simple tit for tat.
You really are a rare breed of libertarian.
Not so. Most of us are firm constitutionalists. -- But then, how would you know?
I have a Christian responsibility obligation to repel invaders and protect myself, my family and my property with violence.
Fine with me.
Just because the State, who you said does not care about the Constitution,
There you go again, chanting some bull. YOU just said, right above, that the state of CA does not care "crap" about the Constitution. -- I've said they are bound to do so.
throws propaganda on tv to try to convince the sheep we are under attack from fourth rate secular desert oil republics, does not mean it is so. Again, that is another one of your metaphysical contradictions.
Nope, -- that line is another one of ~your~ contradictions, brought on by some sort of dementia.
Anyone who believes in slavery, i.e. mandatory servitude, cannot be a libertarian. But if the word is important to you, by all means, go on calling yourself one.
Military service in defense of our country is not "mandatory servitude". It is an obligation of citizenship, like jury duty. -- We excuse mental misfits from both, so calm yourself, you won't be forced to serve.
There is a reason you and Dead Corpse keep on posting here instead of going to the more 'adult' libertarian boards, and we both know it. You go on praying the rain gods will magically restore your rights in the face of all the wisdom of the fore fathers belief in republican government and separated powers.
Scoff all you like. The wisdom of the framers, and their belief in republican government and separated powers will endure, dispite the efforts of clowns like you to say states can ignore our individual rights.
When you can post something even remotely related to what I have posted, I'll acknowledge your presense again.
Until then, may the fnords fill your underwear drawer with itch powder.
But read the second one. He's saying they could try, but the second amendment would prevent them from doing it, calling it a "restraint on both", "both" meaning Congress and state legislatures.
Now I don't know about you, but my oath said I would support and defend the Constitution, not what some racist/statist federal judges twisted it into. Federal Justices and Judges are not God. They don't have the power to amend the Constitution, not the legitimate power at any rate. It says what it says, and it means what it meant when passed, just as any contract means what it meant when signed. The example was given to illustrate what it meant when it was signed, since this guy was around then, and his opinions were respected enough that his book was the one used to teach Consitutional principals at West Point. The opinions of judges and justices come way down on the list of how to understand the meaning of a Constitutional provision.
Could it be because most federal courts have got their collective heads so far up their collective rectums on this issue that they can see their collective tonsils?
I suppose, if that can be done without infringing on it. That might mean that criminals could be denied the RKBA as a part their individual sentences, but most anything else, save such as carrying on private property agaisnt the wishes of the owner, would be an infringement.
There is a reason you and Dead Corpse keep on posting here instead of going to the more 'adult' libertarian boards, and we both know it. You go on praying the rain gods will magically restore your rights in the face of all the wisdom of the fore fathers belief in republican government and separated powers.
Scoff all you like. The wisdom of the framers, and their belief in republican government and separated powers will endure, dispite the efforts of clowns like you to say states can ignore our individual rights.
That is the part that vexes you the most. I am an anti-statist. You are a statist; how else can you support a nation the consrcipts its volunteers unless you believe in the premise of the State?
Military service in defense of our country is not "mandatory servitude". It is an obligation of citizenship, like jury duty. -- We excuse mental misfits from both, so calm yourself, you won't be forced to serve.
How many times must these simple truths be repeated?
Some of you are 14th Amendment, post-Constiutionalists are actual Consitutionalists, some are libertarians. All three are different groups. Uh-oh--you say they are bound to do so? That is what I mean by whistling in the wind. Your last paragraph betrays a lack on understanding between the Old Republic, pre-Civil War, and the consolidationist state of the post Civil War.
My last paragraph said:
Scoff all you like. The wisdom of the framers, and their belief in republican government and separated powers will endure, dispite the efforts of clowns like you to say states can ignore our individual rights.
It betrays NO "lack on understanding between the Old Republic, pre-Civil War, and the consolidationist state of the post Civil War"...
-- You are simply deranged..
I think you have more than demonstrated that you have no real basis for supporting the CA gun ban.
Give it up. You've made a fool of yourself.
Best regards, I'm outta here for the night again...
No, he's saying the state legislators could try, but the people could appeal to the second amendment to curb "any blind pursuit of inordinate power".
Again, I don't know how successful the people would be (see Morton Grove).
Actually it does not. California is one of the few states with no RKBA provision in their state Consitution. New York is another, although they do have a mere law that is a statement of rights that does contain an RKBA provision, I don't think CA has even that. NJ, MD, MN, and IA also have no RKBA provision in their state consitutions. There might be others, I didn't check every state, but I did check the most likely suspects, and not a few others as well.
Bill Clinton, is that you? Have you determined the meaning of "is" yet?
If you read the entire paragraph I quoted, it's clear that Rawles is treating Congress and the state legislatures the same with respect to the second amendment.
Or are you saying that an appeal to the second amendment against a Congressional act would be equally unsuccessful. In that you are probably correct. Especially since the Suprme Court has not even lowered itself to hear such an appeal since "Presser" 1886. (Miller was appealed directly to the Roosevelt Supreme Court from the district court by the government, since the district court had overturned the indictment on grounds that the National Firearms Act violated the second amendment.
As far as applicability to the states goes, Presser relied on Cruikshank, which relied on both the Barron vs. Baltimore and "Slaughter House", the latter of which also relied on Barron vs. Baltimore. The minor little problem is that Barron vs. Baltimore (1833) is a pre 14th amendment case, and so is no longer relavant in light of the 14th amendment.
Cruikshank also stands for the proposition that the states can pass laws against peaceable assembly, unless the assembly is for purposes of appealing to Congress or other parts of the national government. That is certainly no longer "good law", yet the Court refuses to review the application of the same principal with respect to the second amendment, which unlike the first, does not mention Congress. If the 14th amendment, either through due process or the more appropriate "priveleges and immunities" clause, applies the first amendment's protections against state governments, which it does, only someone, or some justice, that doesn't care a whit about the Constitution as written, could argue that the second is not equally applicable against the states. Possibly more applicable due to the absence of the "Congress shall make no law" provision and the understanding of respected jurists and constitutional scholars of the founding generation, and the one after that, indicating that the second applied to the states even before the 14th amendment.
I am saying that an appeal to the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution against a state act would be unsuccessful. I would hope that an appeal to the second amendment against such a power grab by a Congressional act would be successful. Otherwise we're screwed.
Bear in mind that William Rawle qualified his statement with, "if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it". If either the individual state or the federal government took such extreme action, he felt that the people could appeal to the second amendment for protection.
If California (or any other of the five states you mentioned with no RKBA) were to ban all guns totally, I would expect the citizens of that state(s) to appeal to the USSC under the second amendment. Given the prior rulings, I don't think they would be successful. (It would be a real liberal-slap-in-the-face if they were successful by appealing to the right of privacy under the Due Process Clause)
If the state legislature tried to pass such a law, though constitutional, I would expect a) a major backlash from the people (ie, maybe the bill wouldn't pass), b) even more residents leaving, c) the citizens amending their state constitution, or d) a total disregard of the state law.
(pause...pause...pause)
If a state like California (which has no RKBA in their state constitution) bans all guns, the people of that state may appeal to the USSC for protection under the second amendment. I doubt they would be successful because why? That's right. Because the second amendment only applies to the federal government, not the states.
(pause...pause...pause)
If a state like say, Montana, (which has a RKBA in their state constitution) bans all guns, the people of that state can appeal to their own state Supreme Court for protection under the Montana state constitution which states in Sec. 12:
"The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons."
Comprende?
If I said, "Well, (Italian dictator Benito) Mussolini made the trains run on time", he'd come back with, "So, robertpaulsen is a Mussolini lover, huh?"
He's a little ... edgy.
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.