9th Circuit Rules Individuals Have No Right to Bear Arms

SFGate.com (AP) ^ | May 6, 2003 | David Kravets

[Plainsman]

A divided federal appeals court on Tuesday declined to reconsider its December ruling that the Second Amendment affords Americans no personal right to own firearms.

The December decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California's law banning certain assault weapons and revived the national gun ownership debate. With Tuesday's action, the nation's largest federal appeals court cleared the way for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never squarely ruled on the issue.

[Navy Patriot]

So how many communists in favor of the destruction of the US

Just another concealed DemoRat litmus test for the bench.

[sarasmom]

re 101, and chemist-re all of your posts

The Military of the USA consists of an all volunteer force, sworn to protect and defend the constitution of the USA.
Not any particular elected "government"-the constitution.
In case you are unfamiliar with DOD training, or military matters, allow me to introduce to you the concept of a lawfull order.It is mentioned in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.(UCMJ)
Servicemembers give up certain constitutional protections,(that is part of the reason military service is deemed a sacrifice)and swear to abide by the UCMJ, for the duration of their service.
George Bush is CINC, but should he, or any other CINC, or any officer or NCO ,issue an unlawfull order,any who comply are subject to UCMJ courtmarshall.
Any and all lawfull orders must be followed.No unlawfull order,followed, can be excused by claiming to follow orders.
The Governor of any particular state may call upon the State National Guard to act in an emergency, IAW state laws regarding such use of force.
The Feds have no such authority to act within the confines of the USA.It would constitute an unlawfull order.
The military takes such quaint restraints a hell of a lot more seriously than the average politician elected to public office.
Perhaps we, the people, should toy with the idea of a mandatory basic training type system for publically elected officials, prior to allowing them to "serve" in office.
It would be interesting to note the washout rates, and how many emergency elections would be needed to keep elected seats filled, on all levels of government, if minimum competancy standards were required.

[cavtrooper21]

MY point exactly! and I really don't need firearms to create all kinds of damage to a streched thin military supply and logistics structure. If the "blue" team tries to use martial law and the military to enforce it they will be in real trouble in my neck of the woods. And I'm just one middle-aged fat guy with a brain and the will to use it... There are a lot of us out there.
Yamamoto said it best(I'm sorry if the qoute isn't perfect): "... I fear we have awoken the sleeping dragon..."

[Lurker]

You're wrong on two counts my friend.

Regards,

L

[Dr.Deth]

How much would it really take to saw off California and tow it to China? Any effort would be worth it.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"Miller failed to show, and the judgement was defaulted."

"No, actually. His lawyer still argued the case, and a sensible verdict was made. See below."

I missed it. My understanding is that Miller was present at the trial, where the case was dismissed. But the feds appealed, but Miller had long since disappeared and there was no representation of his side at the Supreme Court.

[monkeyshine]

How is it that the 9th circuit can be so stupid, shortsighted, and blatantly politically biased? This is just insane. Justice Kozinski has it exactly right, and put it to the justices bluntly, yet the vast majority of them simply covered up their ears and said "nanananananana".

[boris]

"Clinton wouldn't have survived a third term had he appointed himself king. With all the people taking aim at him he was lucky to survive the first two terms."

Remember the guy who flew an airplane into the White House lawn during Clinton's first administration?

I was standing out there with a big sign: "AIM, DAMMIT!"

Just kidding.

--Boris

[Knightsofswing]

I have a thought on this;
According to the second admentment. Who is the well regulated militia?

My answer is

WE ARE!!

And when the tryants come a knocken I' give my guns up;


Little pionty parts first and over my dead cold moldering body!!!

sic semper tranyis!!!

[cavtrooper21]

Howdy Bro....
Fighting Spirit... yea, I guess so...
But I look at it like this. If My civil rights are removed, suspended, whatever, I have lost the most precious thing I have ever had, my freedom. If I fight, I have nothing to lose but my life, which is meaningless with out that freedom.
I hope and pray that this never happens, that sanity will prevail and common sense will rule again. But I will also teach my son everything I know, including what it means to be free and how to defend that freedom. I will keep my saber bright and keen, my rifle ready and my ammo dry.. Let them come!!!
Scouts Out!!!!

[Valpal1]

"...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds ..."
-- Samuel Adams

So far I've written my congressmen, emailed conservativepetitions.com to start a petition demanding the impeachment of most of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and emailed the contents of my address book to do the same.

It's time we freeped this issue and kept it up until we get results.

[Djarum]

The reason they can interpret the Second Amendment in this false, distorted way is simply that there is nothing US citizens CAN do if the government refuses to stand down following being voted out of power.

As we learned in Viet Nam, and the Russians in Afghanistan, an armed populace can be killed one by one but not controlled. A military coup in the U.S. could secure only eternal conflict, not power.

[monkeyshine]

I understand your argument, but I think your point is not as hard and fast as you suggest. Certainly the US Military, if they wanted to, would wreak havoc on the citizens in open revolt. But, if there were some 30 million or so such citizens, spread among the 50 states, and millions more sympathetic and willing to aid and abet, I can also envisage a scenario whereby the military and the rebellion would so damage the country as to make ruling it a joke.

I mean, the real benefits of ruling the USA would be lost in the effort to maintain this rule beyond an elected term. so long as the people have the ability to resist. Remove that ability, and yes, they could rule with impunity.

[freedumb2003]

You skipped steps 13 and 14:

• Sell weapon to German Soldiers.
• Surrender as fast as possible.

[El Gato]

Odds are they will invent some off the wall reason not to hear it, with the approval of the administration

They don't need a reason, nor do they state one when they deny cert, that is refuse to hear a case. This one I think they might just hear though. If they put it on the calender, interesting times ahead. The Adminstration is already in hot water with their gun owner constitutency over their own (supposed) support for the federal version of this same law. However they are also on record as stating that the second amendment protects an invididual right. They could ask the court not to hear the case, or even to argue before the court that while the second amendment protects an indivdual right, the law does not "unreasonably" violate right. However, they might decide discretion is the better part of valor, and just STFU.

[error99]

"If you will not fight for your cause when you can easily win;
if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly;
then you may come to the moment when you will have to fight
with all the odds against you and only a slim chance for survival.
But there may be an even worse case.
You may have to fight when there is absolutely no chance of victory,
because it is better to perish than to live as a slave."
- - -Winston Churchill

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

With Tuesday's action, the nation's largest federal appeals court cleared the way for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never squarely ruled on the issue.

Not entirely true, if I remember correctly. Miller vs. Long determined that people did not have the right to own sawed-off shotguns (which I suspect is baloney, from a human rights point of view).

[ChemistCat]

Sarasmom, my husband was in the Air Force for 24 years and they had to MAKE him retire. I know what you mean and I really wish military service or at least thorough knowledge of its mission and purpose could be a pre-condition for holding federal office.
---------------------------------------------
I'm trying to respond to the center of each of the good arguments made for and against me here:

I would suggest that you tone it down. You come across as trying to instigate freepers to declare how they would challenge a rogue government. You are throwing gasoline on the fire. -- MonroeDNA

If we have a completely rogue government, as just a minority part of it already is, believe me, FReepers and those like them won't need someone like me to get them to go out and get killed, if need be, for the sake of their liberty. In no way, shape, or form am I advocating such a thing at this point. I am however pointing out that if the founding fathers imagined that such a need might arise, it might well arise. They were armed somewhat, but significantly, BETTER than their adversaries. We had Pennsylvania and Kentucky rifles--and General Von Steuben--they had the Brown Bess muskets and half-hearted, homesick Tommies. That's how military conflict is decided. Political, economic, and diplomatic conflict, however, do not make nearly as much sense.

How much help were they in protecting him from Lee Harvey Oswald armed with only a bolt-action rifle? Thus endeth today's lesson...If some would-be tyrant doesn't heed the lessons and tries to invoke full-scale tyranny anyway, the number of armed civilians which would fight back would be *immensely* larger than the number of Davidians. Waco acted as a "speedbump" which slowed down (and partially reversed) the tendency of federal police to act with increasingly arrogant impunity and heavy-handed deadly force. -- Ichneumon

You won't find the Secret Service allowing any President to expose himself like President Kennedy did--they have learned from history and incorporated it in their training. Reagan might well be the last President anyone manages to hit with a conventional small arms attack. They are REALLY GOOD at their job--the best in the world. There is no head of state anywhere better protected than ours. That's a comfort when he's on our side! What happens if some future President is not? What if some future President completely sells us out, instead of half-heartedly doing so as X-42 did?

Look up a phenomenon called the BONUS ARMY. Hoover administration. The US Government shot at WWI veterans and their wives and children, used explosives, murdered a lot of people who were looking for promised benefits during hard times. The lesson of the federal government acting with arrogant impunity has been learned, and forgotten, many times before.

Had the Iraqis managed to kill Saddam themselves, I would have a lot more faith in the ability of the people to overthrow a head of state when that head of state has a modern security service and modern military serving him. There were a LOT of guns in that country and a LOT of bitter opposition to his rule. They couldn't kill him, obviously, or even kill his freakish sons, because it is possible now to create effective defense against small arms--the only kind of weapon OUR government permits us to have now. Please note, the Iraqi people also had access to small arms. No father of a girl raped by Uday managed to off that demon. Don't think there weren't attempts.

Clinton survived his term because a) his opposition by and large respects the law, and b) he had excellent Secret Service protection that has been well trained to ward off assassination attempts. He wasn't hated as much as Saddam was hated, I think, and didn't do a fraction as much overt evil. What if we get our own Saddam?

for the government to impose overt tyranny, they would have to destroy the country --briant

The end result would be a greatly weakened central government with a near total collapse of infra-structure combined with roaming guerilla forces carrying out hit and run missions for an indeterminate time period. Not a pretty picture. 128 posted on 05/06/2003 7:48 PM CDT by 45Auto

No argument there. However, I see signs that there is a significant faction willing to destroy the country for power. Can you say "we should sign Kyoto" boys and girls? Can you say "this was an illegal war, we should mind the UN?" How about "7% tax for anyone who earns more than $100,000"? I could go on. Nuclear secrets to China ranks WAY up there, doesn't it. "We won't watch you for awhile if you promise to be good" deals with North Korea rank high up there too. Or "I'm too busy playing golf to kill a terrorist."

The Government wouldnt stand a chance in the long haul, and it knows it. --EricOKC

Now, that is true. The 9th Circuit Court stands ready to change its luck. Do we have 5-4 at this point that says Nay? Yes. What about when your son or daughter is your age? Whoa, not so sure there. All depends on whether the President will put his political muscle behind his nominees NOW.

Technology, computer, nuclear and biotech have rendered the old, constitutional way of running things... quite moot. The public clamor for safety, cannot exist along with the rights to keep and bear ANY thing that counterbalances an all powerful fed. ...We need the 21st century equivalent of the second amendment, but, what would it be? -- Robert_Paulson2

/Mr. Paulson, Sir, I haven't always liked your posts but I owe you a home-made loaf of bread--you GET it. There really is no solution. Liberty as we know it is a ghost, and now we fight, as does the Natural Man, merely for the right to keep OUR crumbs from being taken by our neighbor. I do not hate Liberty--quite the contrary--I mourn it.

But the origin of the 2nd Amendment was when an armed citizenry overthrew the most powerful military on the planet and formed their own nation. This amendment was inserted into the Constitution to guarantee that this could happen again if needed. But today, the citizenry has been forbidden access to military armament. This is an elimination of the intention of the Constitution. --gitmo

Not that there is anything we can do about this. The genie is out of the bottle.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Patrick Henry, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788) -- A Navy Vet

That summarizes everything I've said in all my posts.

A lot of my fellow RKBA advocates can become quite hot-headed at the suggestion that we would all roll over like sheep; I often share their assertions that I would give up arms only from "my cold, dead hands". I am no spring chicken, but I'm not sure just how much I am prepared to lose or how far I am willing to go should some SOB actually pass a total ban/confiscation scheme.-- 45Auto

I'm not worried about you. I'm worried about the hothouse children being raised indoors behind locked doors, because they can't ride their bike on the next street--a sex offender lives there, you see, and he has the right to be left alone. How can we expect these children to grow up and risk their lives to preserve the liberty they never had?

In conclusion, this is something I really care about--that people understand that this isn't the 18th century anymore and that the meaning of the Constitution's Second Amendment has changed. It did not change itself--technology changed it. The liberals are trying to change it yet again, of course, and that effort must fail, or we must forever be relegated to mere petitioners--"Oh please government, keep us safe, respond to 911 calls promptly...station a guard at the entrance of my neighborhood, put a camera in my living room...anything, just please keep me safe." If we do lose our small arms, that little bit of residual security is gone.

None of us can make sound political decisions if we are operating on false assumptions. The reality is that we no longer have the power the Founding Fathers wanted us to have, to overthrow the government if needed; the honor of our military, alone, preserves our liberty now. As long as the tanks are operated by people who won't fire on us, and headed by a commander in chief who wouldn't, we're okay. But let's not pretend that any future evil President needs to fear our deer rifles.

[Travis McGee]

Interesting point!