Supreme Court Challenge Looming for California Assault Weapons Ban

Associated Press ^ | May 6, 2003 | David Kravets Associated Press Writer

[Z-28]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal appeals court on Tuesday refused to reconsider its ruling that Americans don't have the constitutional right to own firearms, setting up the possibility of a Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California's assault weapons ban in a 2-1 ruling last December. On Tuesday, a majority of the circuit's 25 active judges declined to rehear the case.

The 9th Circuit's ruling conflicts with a 2001 decision from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said individuals have a constitutional right to guns. The man who challenged California's weapons ban promised an appeal to the nation's highest court.

"I'll have this filed by the end of the week," attorney Gary Gorski said.

California enacted the nation's first assault weapons ban in 1989 after a gunman fired into a Stockton school yard, killing five children. Several states and the federal government later passed similar or more strict bans.

State and federal laws barring assault and other types of weapons are routinely upheld on grounds that they are rational governmental approaches to combat violence. The Second Amendment has had little, if any, impact on those court decisions - except in the California case.

In dismissing the bulk of Gorski's challenge, the 9th Circuit panel said the Second Amendment was not adopted "to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession."

The decision was written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who noted the Supreme Court's guidance on whether the Second Amendment offers individuals the right to bear arms was "not entirely illuminating." The high court, he said, has never directly said whether the personal right to possess weapons was a constitutional guarantee.

Larry Pratt, executive director of the 300,000-member Gun Owners of America, said he wants the Supreme Court to overturn Reinhardt's decision.

"If Judge Reinhardt prevails, the American people could become subjects of the government," Pratt said.

---

On the Net:

9th Circuit: http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov

AP-ES-05-06-03 1915EDT


Built by Text2Html

[Ugly Truth]

The 9th Circuit covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

The 9th Circuit needs to be shrunk to represent the constitutents that appreciate their rulings. Say, to the size of San Francisco. They have come up with more liberal, crackpot rulings that don't represent ANY of the states outside of California.

Nevada has not illegalized machine guns, there are more hunters in Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Idaho that will NEVER give up their arms, no matter what kind.

Redistricting is mandatory. Start writing.

[Khepera]

NO WAY!

[JudgeAmint]

Hmmm..seems this is a job for Henry Bowman perhaps? Better dust off my copy of UC and start reading again...

[Roscoe]

old oft shot down

Same old sourceless question begging.

as for what I expect out of the USSC...

Already scrambling for excuses.

[Roscoe]

SCOTUS will try to avoid ruling on the individual rights question

It wasn't decisional.

[Dead Corpse]

Same old sourceless question begging.

Same old BS replies from Roscoe the Gun Grabber. Do we really need another 1100+ thread of you liberal court arguemtns again?

Already scrambling for excuses.

No. Jerk. You asked for my opinion on what the SCOTUS would do, I gave it.

[Roscoe]

They wouldn't DARE upset the apple cart as much as it needs to be.

Begs the question.

The CORRECT ruling would be that the 2A protects an individual Right against all infringement.

Begs the question.

[Badray]

What can I say? You are right on target!

[Dead Corpse]

Begs the question.

You are such a one trick pony. Sorry, not gonna play that stupid game of yours again.

[Travis McGee]

GMTA!

[Travis McGee]

I agree, the ninth should be broken up!

[firewalk]

bttt

[Roscoe]

Sorry, not gonna play that stupid game

Issue the challenge, then cut and run. SOP

[Dead Corpse]

Issue the challenge, then cut and run. SOP

See post #66.

[Roscoe]

Look at him run!

[Dead Corpse]

Cut and run is SOP? I beat you around the ring for 1100+ posts on the last gun thread you tangled with me on. Are you so eager to do it again?

I can safely bet that none of your arguments have changed, neither will they be more valid. That is also assuming I can keep you on topic for more than two posts at a time.

No thanks. I just wanted others on this thread to be aware of your anti-gun stance and that you support the Ninth's ruling on this issue.

[MizSterious]

Actually, I think the "longest" record might be held by someone else. There was a time, on another topic, when some folks would post what were essentially data dumps to draw the conversation off uncomfortable ground--entire encyclopaedias worth of data dumps. But yours was impressive, even so. :)

[Roscoe]

beat you around the ring for 1100+

You ranted, raved, whined, beggged, and spewed, but you couldn't even find one case or authority to support the assertion that state and local regulation of firearms are violative of the 2nd Amendment.

Assuming that you've finally found one, post it now.

Or do you need a few more years?

[Dead Corpse]

You ranted, raved, whined, beggged, and spewed, but you couldn't even find one case or authority to support the assertion that state and local regulation of firearms are violative of the 2nd Amendment.

Already done on that other thread. You just ignored, obfuscated, denied, cried in your beer, or tried to change the topic for 1100+ posts.

You approve of the 9th Circuits ruling. For the purposes of this thread, and my reason for pinging you to it, that was all I wanted to do.

Or do you now want to change your tune on the 9th Circuits ruling?

[Roscoe]

Already done on that other thread.

Not even once. It seems nothing has changed.

You approve of the 9th Circuits ruling.

The opinion is filled with historical and legal falsehoods, rather like your posts.

As 5th Circuit Judge Robert M. Parker pointed out in his concurring opinion in United States v. Emerson, "The determination whether the rights bestowed by the Second Amendment are collective or individual is entirely unnecessary to resolve this case and has no bearing on the judgment we dictate by this opinion."