Click on the pistol to display the latest FreeRepublic 'bang_list' posts.
Posted on 09/11/2001 1:20:48 AM PDT by fire_eye
"...we hold that a federal criminal gun_control law does not violate the Second Amendment unless it impairs the state's ability to maintain a well_regulated militia."
"For those who may not have heard, on August 29th of this year, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of U.S. v. Haney, held that The Second Amendment is not an individual right, but rather protects only the right of a state to regulate militias. Therefore, it appears by following the logic of this court, the state or the federal government is free to enact legislation to prohibit the possession of a firearm by an individual "not actively maintained and trained by the states." "
This ruling is significant for a variety of reasons. First, recall the famous position and argument of the Attorney General's office during Clinton's administration, that the second amendment does not protect individual's rights. That position/ argument came out in the still pending 5th Circuit Court of Appeals case of U.S. v. Emerson. The parties argued that case over a year ago, however, the court has yet to decide the case. The 10th Circuit decision may influence the Emerson court (while technically it shouldn't - because the parties argued the case over a year ago, the reality is that judges are people and are influenced by outside sources such as other courts. Especially in this case where Haney came out of the state of Oklahoma, while Emerson from the bordering state of Texas.)
Secondly, if the Emerson court (5th circuit) supports the position of the defendant, that the second amendment is an individual right, we see an inconsistency between the circuit courts on a constitutional matter. The Supreme Courts will likely agree to hear the case if any of the parties to the cases petitions for an appeal. The Supreme Court, while only taking 100 to 150 cases per year, regularly take up cases to clear up inconsistencies among the circuits in the interpretation of the law or Constitution.
However, if, in the unfortunate case, the Emerson court rules against the individual's right to own a firearm, the likelihood of the Supreme Courts involvement decreases since no inconsistencies exist."
My 2 cents:
The lower courts, at least, don't seem to care that the original intent was that the entire citizenry be armed in preference to maintaining standing armies. Nor do they seem to think that the phrase "the people" means anything.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will not be so cavalier about the law... but then again, with Communists like Stevens and Ginsberg on there...
Perhaps we Freepers are but leftovers of grander times - times when men dared to venture among the stars and walk on the surface of the moon.
Putting a man on the moon was a government project that used money extorted from the taxpayers to
BUMP
get there ahead of the Russians so they would not claim the Moon as their own and use it as nuclear missle platform. Funny how people forget that. Seems to me national defense IS one of the few legit reasons for a federal government.
Click on the pistol to display the latest FreeRepublic 'bang_list' posts.
This B.S. back-door banning though incrementalism and judicial "legislation" continues to be "the death of 10,000 cuts".
Yep, and President Jefferson was wrong to provide US funds to Lewis & Clark.
CWII to defend our Constituion will not be far behind such a declaration of war.
OWK says 10th Circuit Court is meaningless
I agree. 'Decisions' such as this one are pointless in my view because when push comes to shove what will really be law will be what the armed citizens say it is.
It never ceases to amaze me that people on this forum are willing to see vast amounts of taxpayer dollars squandered on their pet government boondogles. I tell you what, now that the moon has been "explored" (like it wasn't mapped already, and that people didn't know that it was an airless chunk of rock with no resources already), why don't you use the knowledge to exploit the resources there? What, you aren't crazy enough to waste your money on something like that? Well neither is anyone else. You don't see any stockholder companies rushing to get to the moon for a very good reason - namely, that there isn't anything there that's anywhere near the cost that it takes to get there and back. If the thing were made of gold rather than green cheese it still wouldn't be worth the cost of hauling anything back from there. The only entity that can "afford" to go there is the government because it doesn't have to be cost effective. Just squeeze a little more out of the productive elements of society (otherwise known as taxpayers/citizens/serfs). Don't worry that if it were left to VOLUNTARY contributions to support it NASA wouldn't get enough money for a decent 4th of July fireworks show, because "contributions" to NASA are extracted at gunpoint. Government always knows better what to spend out money on that we do.
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.