Unfortunately.
Posted on 10/16/2001 2:34:30 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
From an email
Hi Folks,
Bottom line is that the majority held (more than dicta as an attorney pointed out) that the Second Amendment is in fact an individual right not tied to "militia service".
A huge win for us!!!! Clinton/Gore/Reno government position rejected. But Emerson should appeal the reversal. Will contact his attorneys tomorrow. I am upset that the majority claimed that the tenth amendment issue is dead, especially since a cross appeal by Emerson was denied earlier. What more did he have to try.
-------------------------------------------
The decision is finally in. The majority (Garwood wrote, DeMoss signed onto it) found the Second Amendment is an individual right, but reversed and remanded the Emerson case. As expected, Parker in a minority opinion did not want to support the Second Amendment.
The decision is here - http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm
Not at all. The Supreme Court has already ruled that he doesn't have to register his gun since that would infringe upon his right not to incriminate himself. (Not that Charles Manson is going to get out anytime soon).
So, please tell me how many felons have been deterred by gun laws from obtaining a firearm.
Cheaper to hire one when you need one.
Or marry one, like I did!
Oh, it may well be better than them saying that the 2A is a "collective right".
They in fact say it is an individual right, but then in Emerson's case, they treat it like a "collective" right, having the collective unilaterally decide for all individuals when it is they can and cannot retain the right.
If the government can tell us that ... due to this "infraction or that infraction ... we lose the right ... then it is in effect a collective right all along. If they think Emerson is too dangerous to exercise his right, then Emerson should remain incarcerated. But given this "crime" ... which is really a statement by his ex-wife ... they know they cannot get away (just yet) with putting him away in jail.
It's double speak IMHO, that further reinforces the government position that it TELLS us when we can or cannot retain our God given rights. <p. So, while it is perhaps better than them telling us that we have no right outright (which I do not believe the government could get away with), it tells us we have the right, but that it's government's job to regulate it. That smacks of fascism. Look at Emerson if you doubt my words ... he does not have his guns, neither can he get any ... all over very lame and frivolous reasoning.
I'd bet it's cheaper to marry one than it is to divorce one? LOL
The victory is about as total as it could get in that case, actually. Yes, Emerson had his conviction upheld on appeal. However, the Court was as straightforward and unambiguous in the assertion of an individual 2A right as the SAF would have been.
Emerson is now likely to appeal to the U.S.S.C. The issue of the scope of the 2A right is now as close to being decided definitively by the USSC as it's been since Miller.
One might worry that given the Circuit's opinion the USSC-- even if it heard the case-- might well decide only the narrow issue of whether sufficient procedural guarantees were present to support the infringement of Emerson's 2A rights--even if he had any. One might worry, in other words, that the Court might now have the opportunity rule on the case without deciding the 2A issue. This possibility I think unlikely, however. The Court would have to address the 2A issue if it heard the case. In any event, the danger that the Court would hear the case but not rule on the 2A is not any more likely now than if Emerson had won and the case was appealed by the U.S.
In both cases, the possible case in which we assume Emerson won this most recent appeal and in the actual case in which he lost it, the USSC would tacitly recognize the right of Emerson to keep and bear arms if it decided only the narrow procedural question the 5th Circuit Court decided in favor of the state. There would be no reason for the Court to do this if it didn't accept the individual rights interpretation of the 2A. In fact, if the Court didn't accept the individual rights interpretation not discussing the 2A would be harmful. And, of course, if the Court did accept the individual rights model of the 2A this would be an important fact to note so that it was clear what the issue was on which the case turned. So if the Court were actually to hear the case it would surely pronounce on the 2A whether or not Emerson had won the just-released appeal.
The important thing, then, is the Circuit Court's ruling on the 2A. It's less important than what the Circuit Court ruled on the acceptability of the procedures by which the infringement of (what the Court conceded were) Emerson's constitutional rights.
It's worth noting, though, that if anything, Emerson's loss might make the case more likely to be appealed to the USSC. Notice that if Emerson had won there would be the danger that the U.S. would have decided not to appeal to the USSC at all. That would be far from impossible. As things actually are Emerson might not appeal now, but if he'll get legal support for his case he's really got nothing to lose. So I think the danger of the case ending here is less serious now than if Emerson had won.
On the other hand there is admittedly the danger that the USSC will refuse to hear the case now-- thus leaving the District Courts with conflicting precedents. I think this danger is greater now than if Emerson had won and if the U.S. appealed. Even if the USSC doesn't hear Emerson, however, the conflicting precedents will invite other lawsuits which will eventually work their way to the USSC. Of course, the future makeup of the Court would be less clear.
In the end, then, the ruling is about as good as this case could have turned out at the level of the Circuit.
I assume that you have a problem providing your own security in a free state?
The tax on ammunition and guns is for wildlife conservation (not preservation). It was a tax encouraged by hunters to improve the habitat for wildlife (game or non-game).
Typical liberal BS. The odds on Manson ever getting out are somewhere between zero and nothing. Even if the Parole Board was stupid enough to release him, in a free country where everyone is armed, his odds of surviving his first attempt at crime are only slightly better.
That's the point. It is not precedent, it is dicta. The court did not need to reach the issue of whether the right to bear arms is a mere collective right. The case is wholly disposible on bad boy grounds. Thus the court's musing about collective rights is merely officious expostulation, ie dicta.
Sometimes if dicta is well reasoned, it can be influential. And if a case can be resolved in one direction on a couple of different grounds, the court addressing both when they need only address one is something more than dicta; rather it is a holding on both grounds that is subject to distinguishment in the future. But here you have a party that lost. So the court's discussing how he would have won as it were if he were not a bad boy is pure dicta, and will not in any way I think constrain a future court.
Unfortunately.
"9. See Michael A. Bellesiles, The Second Amendment in Action, 76 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 61 (2000); Carl T. Bogus, The History and Politics of Second Amendment Scholarship: A Primer, 76 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 3 (2000); Carl T. Bogus, The Hidden History of the Second Amendment, 31 U.C. Davis L.Rev. 309 (1998); Keith A. Ehrman & Dennis A. Henigan, The Second Amendment in the Twentieth Century: Have You Seen Your Militia Lately?, 15 U. Dayton L. Rev. 5 (1989); Paul Finkelman, "A Well Regulated Militia": The Second Amendment in Historical Perspective, 76 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 195 (2000); Steven J. Heyman, Natural Rights and the Second Amendment, 76 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 237 (2000); H. Richard Uviller & William G. Merkel, The Second Amendment in Context: The Case of the Vanishing Predicate, 76 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 403 (2000)."
You don't find many pro-gun people arguing for the rights of convicted criminals. Just as you don't find many of the anti-gun crowd arguing against any right to self defense. But both groups have their tin-foil fringe, don't they?
Do you want to make it this easy for them to take away your 2nd Amendment rights?
Yes. Emerson will appeal this. No one deserves to be convicted on unsubstantiated evidence. Maybe they'll take your Bible away because you were preaching to the homeless.
Good day in the morning! Well I'm glad we had a court victory anyway. They can read! They can read! [Hooked on Phonics, our best secret weapon.]
People like you just make it earier for them. But look out, soon you too will be a feral offender because YOU let THEM decide.
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.