Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

American Citizen's Right to keep and bear arms is Guaranteed by Second Amendment _ Emerson Case.
Second Amendment Foundation ^ | 10.16.2001 | Dave LaCourse

Posted on 10/16/2001 8:45:52 PM PDT by CHICAGOFARMER

Fifth Circuit APPEALS COURT CONFIRMS THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

The Fifth Circuit has ruled that the Second Amendment, like all other amendments (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc) referring to ‘the people’ in our Bill of Rights, protects the right of an individual citizen to keep and bear arms, not the state. The court has smashed a cornerstone of the anti-gun house of cards.”

BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON -– In a stunning decision, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has crushed over 60 years of judicial misinterpretation and anti-gun rhetoric by finding that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right.

While the court’s decision in U.S. v Emerson was to reverse and remand a lower court ruling that cleared Dr. Timothy Joe Emerson of a federal violation of the 1994 Domestic Violence Act, the 5th Circuit clearly ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of an individual citizen to keep and bear private arms, “regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of the militia.”

Writing for the majority, Judge William Garwood noted that the government’s long-standing interpretation of the 1939 Miller case, that the Second Amendment merely expresses a “collective right” is not supported by the actual Miller decision. He further noted that, “we are mindful that almost all of our sister circuits have rejected any individual rights view of the Second Amendment. However, it respectfully appears to us that all or almost all of these opinions seem to have done so either on the erroneous assumption that Miller resolved that issue or without sufficient articulated examination of the history and text of the Second Amendment.”

“This is truly a victory for firearms civil rights,” said Dave LaCourse, public affairs director for the Second Amendment Foundation. “For years, gun control extremists and constitutional revisionists have insisted that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. We now can say with the support of the federal court that we have been right, and they have been wrong, all along.”

Acknowledging that in his dissent, Judge Robert M. Parker noted the Second Amendment right is “subject to reasonable regulation,” LaCourse stated: “No right is absolute, not freedom of speech or the press. The Constitution does not protect slander or libel, nor does it guarantee an absolute right to practice a religion that might include human or animal sacrifice. What remains to be determined, and what we will have to continue fighting over, is the definition of ‘reasonable regulation’.”

LaCourse noted, as did the majority, that Dr. Emerson has been acquitted of all state charges relating to his case, which stems from a divorce proceeding. He was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii) for having a firearm while under the conditions of a civil divorce court restraining order. District Judge Sam Cummings held that this law violated Emerson’s Second Amendment right because he had not yet been convicted of any crime.

“Whether Dr. Emerson wins on the remand or appeals and carries his case ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court,” LaCourse said, “the fact remains that the Fifth Circuit has ruled that the Second Amendment, like all other amendments referring to ‘the people’ in our Bill of Rights, protects the right of an individual citizen, not the state. The court has smashed a cornerstone of the anti-gun house of cards.”

The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. SAF previously has funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles, New Haven, CT, and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners. Current projects include a damage action lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers, an amicus brief in support of the Emerson case holding that the Second Amendment is an individual right, a lawsuit against the Clinton gun and magazine ban and a lawsuit in Cincinnati supporting the right of self-defense carry of firearms.

Please visit the best Emerson webpages at http://www.saf.org.

Read up on the Emerson Case

For Immediate Release:f
Contact: Dave LaCourse (425) 454-7012
Second Amendment Foundation
12500 NE Tenth Place · Bellevue, WA 98005
(425) 454-7012, FAX (425) 451-3959 www.saf.org
October 16, 2001


TOPICS: Breaking News; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last
This destroys the Brady Foundation, the Clinton era attorney's arguments, the Million Misguided Mommies Marcher arguement that Gun (firearms) should be taken away from American Citizens.
1 posted on 10/16/2001 8:45:52 PM PDT by CHICAGOFARMER (lawjj2@allways.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CHICAGOFARMER
How the h*ll did that happen after eight years of Clinton packing the courts?
2 posted on 10/16/2001 8:47:48 PM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Only one judge was a Clinton appointee. The other two were put there by Reagan and Bush (I).
3 posted on 10/16/2001 8:51:17 PM PDT by NovemberCharlie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CHICAGOFARMER
My take on this is that now the ball is in Emerson's court, which is a good thing! Now that we have a 2nd Amendment friendly AG in office, who would not have be inclined to appeal a loss on 2nd Amendment grounds to the Supreme Court, all we have to do now is to take the initiative to appeal to the Supreme Court ourselves... and if I'm not mistaken, that is just what the Second Amendment Foundation is planning!

Now if Al Gore would have won the election, we all know he would have had an anti-gun AG... Under that scenario, I believe that the 5th Circuit would have swung the other way in not only upholding the individual rights interpretation of the RKBA, but it would have upheld Emerson's district court win as well, because in that case the AG would have appealed to the Supreme Court.

Don't you see that now we have the perfect opportunity to make lemonade out of the lemons we have been handed???

What do you think?

nralife

http://second-amendment-homepage.com

4 posted on 10/16/2001 8:53:05 PM PDT by nralife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Mr. Illbay, with all due respect, I do believe I wholeheartedly agree with one of your posts (for a change)!

And I couldn't have put it better myself.

5 posted on 10/16/2001 8:53:19 PM PDT by BenR2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CHICAGOFARMER
AMEN, AMEN.
So let it be written, so let it be done!!!!!
6 posted on 10/16/2001 8:55:17 PM PDT by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zip
WHOOOHOOO BUMP!
7 posted on 10/16/2001 8:55:54 PM PDT by BOBWADE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHICAGOFARMER
bump for FREEDOM
8 posted on 10/16/2001 8:57:15 PM PDT by freedomnews
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHICAGOFARMER
They can read! They can read! By God, they can actually read! (well, the liberal is still illiterate of course)
9 posted on 10/16/2001 8:57:40 PM PDT by SirAllen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHICAGOFARMER
The gist of this story has already been previously posted on FR, but nonetheless is important to warrant yet another big ol' posting to the bang_list!.

(Click HERE to show most gun-related articles recently posted on FreeRepublic.com.)

10 posted on 10/16/2001 8:58:42 PM PDT by Skibane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BOBWADE
Good idea. I forgot to BUMP .
11 posted on 10/16/2001 8:59:46 PM PDT by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CHICAGOFARMER
Kudos to SAF for taking the lead on this. It isn;t the perfect decision, but we gained much more than we lost.
12 posted on 10/16/2001 9:00:09 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
.
13 posted on 10/16/2001 9:01:16 PM PDT by Skibane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CHICAGOFARMER
One has to wonder how it is that they could argue with a straight face that the phrase, "the people" means different people from amendment to amendment throughtout the Bill of Rights (which was adopted all together as a block of 10).
14 posted on 10/16/2001 9:01:22 PM PDT by Lester Moore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHICAGOFARMER
This destroys the Brady Foundation, the Clinton era attorney's arguments, the Million Misguided Mommies Marcher arguement that Gun (firearms) should be taken away from American Citizens.

HOooooorrraayyyyy. This is such good news.
I can see them changing their pants already!!!!

15 posted on 10/16/2001 9:03:38 PM PDT by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHICAGOFARMER
This is an awesome ruling. However, it only affects 5th Circuit states. The gun-grabbers will still be enforcing the federal law against men who keep guns (all woman needs to do is allege domestic violence and obtain an "ex parte" order for protection which the courts hand out like candy), without any conviction - based upon an angry wife or girlfriend's say so. Hopefully a similar ruling will come down from the US Supreme Court one of these days.
16 posted on 10/16/2001 9:04:19 PM PDT by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nralife
I totaly agree. Ashcroft can instruct his lawyers to appeal it to SCOTUS but they won't rigorously offer an argument against the case. It would be good to get this affirmed by the scotus. I think I will drink a cold one right now to celebrate!
17 posted on 10/16/2001 9:04:30 PM PDT by BOBWADE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lester Moore
One has to wonder how it is that they could argue with a straight face that the phrase, "the people" means different people from amendment to amendment throughtout the Bill of Rights

The same way they twisted "the right to life" to mean abortion.

18 posted on 10/16/2001 9:05:34 PM PDT by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Texas has real men!
19 posted on 10/16/2001 9:06:00 PM PDT by CHICAGOFARMER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
quite bumpable!
Thank god for W!
20 posted on 10/16/2001 9:07:01 PM PDT by BOBWADE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson