Supreme Court Urged to Take on Gun Rights

The Associated Press ^ | 7/3/03 | Gina Holland

[LdSentinal]

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court is being asked to overturn an appeals court ruling that said the Constitution does not guarantee people a personal right to own a gun.

The court's past rulings on Second Amendment gun rights — many in the 1800s — are a mess that should be straightened out when the justices return from their summer break, an appeal being filed Thursday at the court said.

The appeal relates to one of two closely watched cases from the liberal-leaning 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The high court will also decide later this year whether to review a 9th Circuit ruling that banned teacher-led reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools because of the phrase "under God."

The gun case includes an unlikely group of challengers — not the National Rifle Association or other organized groups, but some rugby teammates and friends. They include a police SWAT officer, a Purple Heart recipient, a former Marine sniper, a parole officer, a stockbroker and others with varied political views. They had sued the state over laws banning high-powered weapons.

"Citizens need the Second Amendment for protection of their families, homes and businesses," their attorney and rugby teammate, Gary Gorski of Fair Oaks, Calif., wrote in the appeal of a ruling that upheld California's assault weapons ban.

The Second Amendment states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The 9th Circuit panel said the amendment's intent was to protect gun rights of militias, not individuals. A more conservative appeals court in New Orleans has ruled that individuals have a constitutional right to guns.

Eugene Volokh, a constitutional law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the Supreme Court's record on the Second Amendment is thin and odds are against the justices taking the case.

"The court hasn't jumped into it since 1939," he said. "At some point the Supreme Court will want to make sure it is interpreted consistently throughout the nation."

The case brings a politically charged issue to the court just before the presidential election. If justices agree to hear the case, it will be scheduled for argument next year.

Last year, gun-control advocates were dismayed by the Bush administration's endorsement of individual gun-ownership rights, in a filing at the Supreme Court that effectively reversed long-standing federal government policy on interpreting the Second Amendment.

The administration could weigh in now in this case. Mathew Nosanchuk, litigation director for the pro-gun control Violence Policy Center, said it's better strategy for the White House to steer clear of the issue. The California case involves a state assault weapons ban, and there is controversy over whether Congress should renew a federal assault weapons ban next year.

President Bush has said he supports extending the federal ban, but sentiment is strong in the GOP-controlled Congress to let the ban expire and Bush has not put much energy into efforts to extend it.

Some advocates on both sides probably want the justices to decline to review the 9th Circuit ruling, said gun rights attorney Stephen Halbrook. "It's a wild card. You really can't read where they'll go."

He also said the case is complicated because it involves questions about state authority to undercut gun rights and whether the challengers had standing to sue the state.

[coloradan]

... and "gun-control advocates were dismayed" but the article doesn't also state that "gun rights groups were elated".

[Shooter 2.5]

I think we're pretty much screwed.

We waited forty years for a good court to get a good ruling and what happens? The lawsuits are going to be decided by a clinton court.

You would think the last three judgements by the U.S. Supreme Court would have given the people pushing these lawsuits a chance to think aboiut what they're doing but I guess not.

You would think they would have paused for one second to think about who the last president to confirm a Justice was.

The way things are going, I think we're going to lose by a 5 to 4.

[Roscoe]

Silviera handed the 9th an easy decision, and the court took advantage of the opportunity to load its opinion up with anti-RKBA dicta.

[backhoe]

The 'law' is what the Supremes say it is and our fate is what it is. Better to find out that we are subjects now than to leave it to our children to start over.

Sadly, I find myself agreeing. The Court's last two rulings have just about rendered me speechless.

[philman_36]

States do not have God given Rights.
You've partly hit upon the whole banana. God given Rights! If "religion" is "out" then so is God. If God is "out" then so are our unalienable Rights and government is the dispenser of all Rights.
All of this "morality" hullabaloo is merely a designed smoke screen to take away unalienable Rights.
JMO

[mickie]

This is the worst SC I have ever seen.
Let us hope that they don't "take on" this sensitive subjuct!

[Travis McGee]

Only well trained goverment offishuls like me need danjerus guns.

[Tahoe3002]

I served seven years as a USMC officer. I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I care not what the Supremes may rule, or GWB or any future president, or UN, may decree re guns. If they decree or pass laws requiring the registration, turn in, etc. of my weapons, I WILL NOT OBEY.
We, the sheeple, have allowed the courts, and legislatures usurp our Constitutional rights so many times, in so many ways, they think they can do just about anything to us and we will just tuck our collective tails and sulk in the corner. Enough is enough. Vote the bassturds out, be they republican or democrat.

[proudofthesouth]

The way I see it is this: Humans are the most intelligent lifeform on this planet. Therefore, I have the right to protect and defend myself, my home, and my family to the best of my abilities. My abilities means using a pistol, rifle or shotgun.

[jwalsh07]

This court is not the one to send an indivdiual rights case too. There are consistently 5 votes for group rights and "transcendent" liberty which translated could mean, the transcendent right to live in a society FREE of weapons.

[boris]

"Given recent rulings handed down by the Nine, I'm not certain that I want them to hear any gun rights cases."

Yeah, at least until Bush is able to name a couple of Justices.

[TexasCowboy]

I took that same oath, Tahoe.
I agree.

There will be many "cold, dead fingers" in this country if they try.

[MississippiMan]

Given recent rulings handed down by the Nine, I'm not certain that I want them to hear any gun rights cases.

My sentiments exactly.

MM

[Gritty]

After this last batch of rulings by our Supreme Court aka New Masters, I have zero faith they will render the correct decision based on the Constitution.

There are no "emanations of penumbras" there to divine, therefore they will merely throw out the clear meaning of the original documents, Founding Fathers' commentary, such judicial lions as Chief Justice Story and centuries-long established precedent and law. Instead, they will come up with some new mumbo-jumbo saying none of the above meant what was plainly wrote and said, and therefore they are changing it to what they want it to say!

A pox on these jerks - purposely leaving out Rhenquist, Scalia and Thomas, of course!

[Travis McGee]

This supreme court could find a right to a guaranteed living wage of 100K per annum and a free house right behind the penumbra of abortion and sodomy.

[gatex]

"...therefore they will merely throw out the clear meaning of the original documents, Founding Fathers' commentary, ...."

Justice O'Connor said in her recent tv interview that she does not normally refer to the original documents, etc. -- since things like DNA, night vison, thermal imaging. etc. were not known then.

I was disapointed, since the original documents show the intent and basis for the wording.(only saw a short portion of her interview.)

[Atlas Sneezed]

The court's past rulings on Second Amendment gun rights — many in the 1800s — are a mess that should be straightened out...

BIAS alert!

That "mess" is quite consistent about the individual right to bear arms, if I'm not mistaken.

[Orangedog]

It takes 60 votes to get anyone on the bench and some of the "Republicans" in the senate don't want the Constitution interpreted as it was written. Senate leadership hasn't even made the dems mount a real filibuster on the current crop of judicial nominees. I hope Bush is just "keeping his powder dry" and has some real strategery ready when a seat for the Nine does open up.

[Hinoki Cypress]

Ditto ,p-i-n-g!