9th Circuit: No Right to Bear Arms U.S. Court in Calif. Stands by Gun Ruling
A majority of the active judges on the 9th Circuit must vote to rehear a case for it to be considered "en ban," or by the entire court. In this case, a majority of the 28-seat court refused that hearing while five dissented.
The five judges said the three-member panel's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was flawed. In one blistering dissent, Judge Alex Kozinski said his colleagues had refused to consider the matter because they were simply "none too keen" on a constitutional guarantee to bear arms.
Kozinski said the majority of the court had reached their decision by ignoring U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
"The majority falls prey to the delusion -- popular in some circles -- that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll," he said.
The famously liberal 9th Circuit infuriated Americans last year by declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, a ruling that is also headed for the Supreme Court for review.
Project FREEDOM: Official Web Site of US Rep. Ron Paul
Assault Weapons and Assaults on the Constitution
The Bush administration recently surprised and angered many pro-gun conservatives by announcing its support for an assault weapons ban passed in 1994. The law contained a ten-year sunset provision, and is set to expire in 2004 unless reauthorized by Congress. A spokesman for the administration stated flatly that the President "supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law."
Perhaps this should have surprised no one. President Bush already stated his support for the ban during the 2000 campaign. The irony is that he did so even as the Democratic Party was abandoning gun control as a losing issue. In fact, many attribute Gore’s loss to his lack of support among gun owners. The events of September 11th also dealt a serious blow to the gun control movement, as millions of Americans realized they could not rely on government to protect them against terrorism. Gun sales have predictably increased.
Given this trend in the American electorate away from support for gun control, the administration’s position may well cost votes in 2004. The mistaken political premise is that while Republicans generally support gun rights, so-called "assault weapons" are different and must be controlled. The administration clearly believes that moderate voters from both parties support the ban. "Who could possibly need such weapons?" is the standard question posed by gun control advocates.
Few people asking that question, however, know much about the banned weapons or the Second amendment itself. The law in question bans many very ordinary types of rifles and ammunition, while limiting magazine capacity for both rifles and pistols that are still legal. Many of the vilified "assault rifles" outlawed by the ban are in fact sporting rifles that are no longer available to hunters and outdoorsmen. Of course true military-style automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market. So practically speaking, the assault weapons ban does nothing to make us safer.
More importantly, however, the debate about certain types of weapons ignores the fundamental purpose of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of the time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms. It’s convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying "That could never happen here, this is America"- but history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish ten, thirty, or fifty years from now.
Tortured interpretations of the Second amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals. Georgetown University professor Robert Levy recently offered this simple explanation:
"Suppose the Second amendment said ‘A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.’ Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?"
Michael
You said that you wanted a more positive indication that it came from the man himself? Looks like it to me.
Then I will have to suck it up and go your route: RINO or not, vote Republican.
Let's see how it plays out. I'm not a believer yet.
Minnesota, New Mexico, and Colorado - that makes three. Who else?
Either Bush lied to gain moderate liberal votes or he really would sign another AWB?
There are locked factory gates all over the country that the Federal Government has made it too expensive for them them to remain open. H. Jr. needs to look around. However, if he really means he would refrain from trying to regulate businesses and industries he dosen't like, then that's a refreshing view from a Democrat.