9th Circuit Rules Individuals Have No Right to Bear Arms

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

[RightWhale]

I think the 9th rules here, too, but Murkowski is trying to split us off. The 9th is so far out of step they are marching up their own backsides. This is the kind of thing Clintons actually do, it's how they get their real work done.

[samuel_adams_us]

Of course not but if you are communist that's what you want it to say.

[Travis McGee]

The Branch Davidians proved nothing more than that a hundred religious zealots in a plywood building were not fire proof. Nothing more.

We have not yet seen a test of what happens when millions of scoped deer rifle toting citizens refuse to roll over to a tyranny. That day may yet come.

[jdogbearhunter]

Please count me in, sir.

[Travis McGee]

"Awkward time" bump.

[FreedomCalls]

Countdown to reversal by USSC.

And if they don't reverse it? Don't count your chickens before they are hatched. My count is 6-3 to uphold it.

[TexanToTheCore]

"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." Well, they finally up and did it. They stopped nibbling around the edges and stated their agenda in clear terms, a mistake at this point in history.

Who shall write the majority opinion?

Scalia? Thomas?

Scalia? Thomas?

Who can produce enough rhetorical heat to blister the ninth courts behinds?

[ChemistCat]

Now, were you criticizing my English or my argument?

Do you believe that you can own weapons that will enable you to fight back against your government and win? Overthrow your government, if it should throw what little remains of the Constitution away for the sake of "security" or "tourism" or whatever the cause of the day might be?

I do wish I could give you an unlimited weapons budget and plenty of time to dig in. It would be very entertaining to watch.

[El Gato]

9th Cir.? Fooey.

Since the 9th is the most reversed of the circuits, this is a good thing. What's bad is that it concerns a state law, not the federal one. It would be better to get the 2nd affirmed as protecting an individual right first, and then later decide if it's protection extends to state governmental actions.

OTOH, if it's overturned, on 2nd amendment grounds, inside of few years there won't be a gun control law in the country other than those applying to convicted criminals.

[spodefly]

Behold the Idiocy of the Gun-Grabbing Chimp.

1. "the people" in the First Amendment means *the people*;
2. "the people" in the Fourth Amendment means *the people*;
3. "the people" in the Ninth Amendment means, *the people*;
4. ...but "the people" in the Second Amendment (ratified in 1787) means the National Guard (which was created by an Act of Congress in 1917).

http://www.attrition.org/technical/firearms/chimp.html

[Valpal1]

Seems to me that it is time for a movement to impeach and remove these idjits from the bench.

It is time for some in your face grassroots political hardball.

So what is the process for citizenry to remove these digraces to the bench?

[Eastbound]

"Awkward time" bump."

I think if this goes to the USSC, they will take their lead on what congress and the executive branch does with the assault weapon ban which will be on the front burner for renewal or sunset just before election next year.

[El Gato]

there is nothing US citizens CAN do if the government refuses to stand down following being voted out of power. And let's all of us raise our hands if we thought Clinton entertained that possibility. I'm SURE he did. Had 9/11 happened between November 2000 and January 2001, you know he would have.

Then why are the policritters so darned afraid of .50 BMG long range rifles? Besides, in the scenario you propose you would have to factor in the fact that so many of those "loathed" by the Clintons, returned the sentiment. More than a few of those would have remembered that the Constitution requires a President to step down at noon on January 20th, following an election and also have remembered their oath to support and defend that Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic

[Ichneumon]

[joesnuffy]

the second doesnt apply to a collective right any more than the first does

[Shooter 2.5]

It's just not. There is no way the population of this country could resist whomever is in control of the military, if the military will go along with it.

Our enemy isn't the military.

[colorado tanker]

ROTFLOL!!!

[ChefKeith]

9th Circus

[ChemistCat]

Of course not. Read what I said. IF the military goes along with it. That is the IF upon which our hopes hinge now, not the Second Amendment.

Saddam's military was made of Iraqis and they consented to what he did to his country. God help us if our military ever consents to a President the likes of the 9th Circuit Court.

[joesnuffy]

Attorney General John Ashcroft has said he believes the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to bear arms, but that the right is not absolute.

Ashcroft left himself some wiggle room....he really should allow SCOTUS to decide what the meaning of "the people" really is...at least before the hildabeast or one like her is the sitting POTUS (God Forbid)