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]

You two are complete idiots. You claim as a 'fact' that states can constitutionally ban guns, yet you waffle by saying you don't approve. --
-- Not true, you approve by accepting the erronious 'fact'.  

[robertpaulsen]

Is it a fact that your state charge you a sales tax? Property tax? Income tax?

They can? Oh, so you approve of those taxes, huh? And if they doubled those taxes, why, you'd approve of that, also?

C'mon, tpaine. Get it through your skull that just because someone states a fact, it doesn't follow that they support it.

[Dead Corpse]

Hey idiot, there is specific taxation powers written right into the Constitution. A provision barring government interference, and yes other clauses applying the principle to the REST of the country as well, in our Right to arms DOES exist in the Constitution.

Sometimes I really gotta wonder which elementary school you are posting from.

[robertpaulsen]

"Hey idiot, there is specific taxation powers written right into the Constitution."

So you're in favor of the "rich" paying 70% like they did before Reagan? Some people pay no tax? Some people actually receive a tax credit?

What a re-distribution of wealth good little socialist you are.

[Dead Corpse]

So you're in favor of the "rich" paying 70% like they did before Reagan? Some people pay no tax? Some people actually receive a tax credit?

Actually, I prefer user fees and privitization of some of what are now public services. Failing that, try a thomas.loc.gov search for HR25. The NRST bill is still alive for now. 40 some cosponsors. (sarcasm)Thanks for asking what my position is by the way. So nice of you to ask before jumping to conclusions.(/sarcasm)

What a re-distribution of wealth good little socialist you are.

Have you stopped beating you boyfriend?

[tpaine]

You two are complete idiots. You claim as a 'fact' that states can constitutionally ban guns, yet you waffle by saying you don't approve. --
-- Not true, you approve by accepting the erronious 'fact'.  
341 tpaine

---

Is it a fact that your state charge you a sales tax? Property tax? Income tax?
They can? Oh, so you approve of those taxes, huh? And if they doubled those taxes, why, you'd approve of that, also?
C'mon, tpaine. Get it through your skull that just because someone states a fact, it doesn't follow that they support it.
342 -rp-

---

I am not supporting the erronious 'fact' that states can constitutionally ban guns, -- you are.

[robertpaulsen]

"erronious 'fact' that states can constitutionally ban guns"

It is not an erronious fact. If the state constitution allows it, they may do so.

One of these days you will be surprised when it happens, thinking all along that you are protected under the second amendment, and having done nothing in your state to correct it.

Maybe it is you who wants guns banned by claiming, "The sky is not falling. Go back to sleep."

[tpaine]

tpaine:
I'm not supporting the erronious fact that states can constitutionally ban guns

---

It is not an erronious fact. If the state constitution allows it, they may do so.
-rp-

---

Crazy, traitoristic conclusion, paulsen, belied by ALL of our US Constitutions principles.

You really should consider posting at DU.

[robertpaulsen]

At the time of the signing of the U.S. Constitution, the states were fiercely independent. For you to think that the document they were creating would apply one standard to all of them is ludicrous.

The U.S. Constitution, and the first eight amendments, only applied to the newly formed federal government. Each state already has a constitution, and many of them already had some form of a RKBA.

You can call it crazy. You can call it traitorous. But that's how the document read in 1789 when it was signed. I guess our founding fathers were crazy traitors to the U.S. also?

[tpaine]

At the time of the signing of the U.S. Constitution, the states were fiercely independent. For you to think that the document they were creating would apply one standard to all of them is ludicrous.

They were fully aware they were creating a more perfect union, where all men would be free, -- to own a gun, along with any other type of property, throughout he states & territories. You've got the crazy idea that once states were formed they then could take away a US citizens right to possess & bear arms. -- An absolutely insane idea.

The U.S. Constitution, and the first eight amendments, only applied to the newly formed federal government. Each state already has a constitution, and many of them already had some form of a RKBA. You can call it crazy. You can call it traitorous. But that's how the document read in 1789 when it was signed. I guess our founding fathers were crazy traitors to the U.S. also?

No, they were very smart men that allowed for checks & balances between fed & state powers. These powers are now being violated by state, fed, & local governments, particularily over the RKBA's.

You traitorously approve of CA's violations. Case closed.

[tpaine]

To close, here is what is ironic, and a major part of what makes me so sad:
1) Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution expressly declares that it is the supreme Law of the Land. Section 3 says "and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution, . . . ."
2) Article VII of the U.S. Constitution said, in context, that when enough states ratified the Constitution it (the Constitution) would be the supreme law, binding on the States.
3) Article V of the U.S. Constitution said, in context, that amendments to it, such as the Bill of Rights, are as much a part of the original Constitution as the original itself.
4) The Second Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution. As such, it is binding on the States and all judges, including the 9th circuit judges who decided Silveira and the U.S. Supreme Court judges who rejected Silveira.
5) Silveira originated in California, arguably one of this nation's most rabid pro-victim disarmament laws states.
6) California's Constitution's preamble acknowledges the existence of "Almighty God" and thanks "God" "for our freedom."
7) Article 1, Section 1 of California's Constitution acknowledges that all people "have inalienable rights" and among these are "defending life and liberty, . . . Safety, . . . Privacy."
8) How can one defend life and liberty and obtain safety when disarmed?
9) How can one maintain privacy when so much requires government's prior permission, which requires substantial disclosures, which is the antithesis of maintaining privacy?
10) Article 1, Section 5 states, ". . . A standing army may not be maintained in peacetime. . . . ."
11) Article 1, Section 6 states, ". . . Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime." Servitude is distinct from and broader than slavery. Servitude involves the idea of being stripped of one's rights before being convicted of a crime. 
12) Article 1, Section 26 states, "the provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory . . . ."
13) Article 3, Section 1 states, "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."
14) The California Supreme Court in People v. Camacho (2000) 23Ccal.4th 824, a Fourth Amendment case, at page 838, said, "[C]onstitutional lines are the price of Constitutional government." I am sad because they have never respected this Constitutional bright line: ". . . The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.," and that line is brighter than the one in the Fourth Amendment.
15) The U.S. Bill of Rights' purpose was to withdraw certain subjects from controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) 319 U.S. 624. One's right to life, liberty, property, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote. Id. The Bill's philosophy is that the individual is the center of society and individual liberty is a paramount value that government must respect. Id.
16) Government must honor rights guaranteed in the U.S. Bill of Rights even when it is inconvenient. Reid v. Covert (1957) 354 U.S. 1. It is dangerous to allow inconvenience to undermine individual rights. Id. To do so, would destroy the benefit of a written Constitution and undermine the basis of our government. Id. Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. Id. A close and literal construction leads to gradual depreciation of rights. Id. 
17) The rights declared in the U.S. Bill of Rights are law. Harmelin v. Michigan (1991) 501 U.S. 957, 966.
18) The Forth Amendment (and much of the rest of the Bill of Rights) is designed to prevent, not simply to redress, unlawful police action. Steagald v. United States (1981) 451 U.S. 204, 217.
19) "A right that is not honored when invoked is no right at all." People v. Neal (2003) 31 Cal.4th 63, 89. (Justice Kennard concurring.)
Can these 19 points be logically reconciled with the 9th Circuit's Silveira decision? With the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of Silveira? Does the government speak with a forked tongue? Shuffle the law like a professional card shark shuffles cards?
Are you, too, sad?
Why?
What now?
Why?
Governments' alleged basis to regulate firearms is based on what is called "the municipal police power to promote public health, safety, and welfare." Governments' argument is: 
1) We have this power and duty to promote public safety; 
2) Firearms are obviously dangerous and when misused members of the public are harmed or killed and public safety and welfare are threatened; and 
3) We must, therefore, use our municipal police power to regulate firearms. 
Superficially, this argument has plausible merit. It fails, however, to come to terms with the counter arguments: 
1) Governments' municipal police power to regulate firearms cannot Constitutionally be used to circumvent nor to trump the U.S. Bill of Rights; 
2) That police power stops at the foot of the Bill of Rights; 
3) That police power crashes into, and destroys itself, against what is arguably one of the Constitution's clearest, absolute, unequivocal, bright lines: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."; 
4) That language is really three Constitutional commands—First, Right of the People; Second, To keep and to bear arms; and Third, Shall not be infringed; 
5) The declaration of that right coupled with "shall not be infringed" means this: Governments in this nation do not have any Constitutionally legitimate right to engage in any kind of prior restraint regulation of anything having to do with privately owned, controlled, possessed, carried, used, sold, bought, transferred, or manufactured firearms, period....


Pete Mancus

[tpaine]

Reflections Upon the U.S. Supreme Court's Rejection of Silveira  by Peter Mancus, California Attorney at Law
Address:http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Mancus/silveira.htm Changed:12:02 PM on Friday, December 5, 2003