Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court Rejects Gunmakers' Appeal (Federal AW Ban Upheld)
KRON TV San Francisco ^ | 4 September 2003 | AP staff

Posted on 09/04/2003 12:51:32 PM PDT by 45Auto

Two gunmakers who challenged Congress' authority to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons lost a Supreme Court appeal Monday.

The court, without comment, rejected an appeal that said Congress exceeded its power to regulate interstate commerce when it outlawed such weapons in 1994.

The 1994 law, an amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, defines semiautomatic assault weapons to include a list of specified firearms and ``copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber.''

Navegar Inc. and Penn Arms Inc. challenged the federal ban in 1995.

Florida-based Navegar, doing business as Intratec, manufactures two semiautomatic pistols, the TEC-DC9 and TEC-22, which are among the specifically banned weapons.

Pennsylvania-based Penn Arms makes the Strike 12, a 12-gauge revolving cylinder shotgun. All such shotguns are treated as semiautomatic assault weapons under the 1994 law.

A federal trial judge and the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the ban. In its ruling last year, the appeals court called the law a permissible ``regulation of activities having a substantial effect on interstate commerce.''

The appeals court cited Congress' ``intent to control the flow through interstate commerce of semiautomatic assault weapons bought or manufactured in one state and subsequently transported into other states.''

In the appeal acted on Monday, the gunmakers argued that the appeals court ruling conflicts with recent Supreme Court decisions that pared congressional power by narrowing the definition of interstate commerce.

In one, the Supreme Court said Congress exceeded its authority in banning possession of guns within 1,000 feet of schools. In another, the court struck down a key provision of the Violence Against Women Act.

The gunmakers' appeal said the appeals court wrongly presumed that ``the manufacture and transfer of semiautomatic assault weapons was for a national market.''

They said the appeals court ``had no basis for concluding ... that the intrastate manufacture, transfer or possession of semiautomatic assault weapons had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.''

Justice Department lawyers urged the court to reject the appeal. ``Federal regulation of firearms and assault weapons is based in large part on evidence that the nationwide market for firearms renders purely local prohibitions ineffective,'' they said.

The case is Navegar v. U.S., 99-1874.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: aw; awban; bang; navegarvus; supremetyrants
Judicial tyranny is no less dangerous than legislative tyranny; maybe more so. The case was based on 10th Amendment grounds, interstate commerce. If Congress can use the commerce clause to over-ride a Constitutional right, then there is nothing standing in the way of an eventual total federal ban on firearm ownership.
1 posted on 09/04/2003 12:51:33 PM PDT by 45Auto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Well isn't that what Souter & Company want. Thus the use of "european laws" as references in recent cases. The second ammendment will be voided on it being out of sync with "developing international legal norms" or some such.

BLOAT !
2 posted on 09/04/2003 12:53:49 PM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto

I agree that the AW ban sucks...but the TEC-22 sucks more than the ban...total POS firearm...

3 posted on 09/04/2003 12:55:09 PM PDT by MD_Willington_1976
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MD_Willington_1976
I agree that the AW ban sucks...but the TEC-22 sucks more than the ban...total POS firearm...

Agreed. Total crap. However, it gives you street cred while doing a driveby on some crackhouse in da hood!

4 posted on 09/04/2003 1:01:00 PM PDT by WestPacSailor (Sorry folks, this tagline's closed. The moose out front should of told you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
I suppose this means that if you frighten an attacker by brandishing one of those ugly, black 'assault' weapons before you shoot him, you'll be arrested for using the wrong kind of gun?
5 posted on 09/04/2003 1:04:05 PM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
A federal trial judge and the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the ban. In its ruling last year, the appeals court called the law a permissible ``regulation of activities having a substantial effect on interstate commerce.''

The appeals court cited Congress' ``intent to control the flow through interstate commerce of semiautomatic assault weapons bought or manufactured in one state and subsequently transported into other states.''

Funny how the concepts of "regulate" and "intent to control" have nothing to do with prohibition or banning of items.

6 posted on 09/04/2003 1:12:42 PM PDT by HurkinMcGurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WestPacSailor
I guess a gangbanger could get street cred by brandishing a polished turd with a banana mag stuck to it too..

Have you ever used a TEC-22...that thing is built to jam, tried one at a friends farm...wow, it was like using a single shot...

Take it easy and watch out for those AW's that have a mind of their own and will leap out of the gun cabinet and attempt to go full auto at your children..because we all know how AW's target children with their insatiable lust for death and destruction...

Later

Matt
7 posted on 09/04/2003 1:17:43 PM PDT by MD_Willington_1976
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
One of these days we need to send a case to the Supreme Court based squarely on Second Amendment grounds.

All this pussyfooting around the Second Amendment is useless.

--Boris

8 posted on 09/04/2003 4:56:34 PM PDT by boris (Education is always painful; pain is always educational.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boris
It's going to happen, and we're going to lose.

L

9 posted on 09/04/2003 5:00:36 PM PDT by Lurker ("First get the facts right. Later on you can distort them any way you please." Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: boris
Silviera just may be that case. The question is, will the US SC hear it? see Silviera
10 posted on 09/04/2003 5:01:11 PM PDT by 45Auto (Big holes are (almost) always better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
"It's going to happen, and we're going to lose."

The point is timing. Wait until some of the leftists on the Court retire and hopefully some good nominees get confirmed. Yeah, I know. Still...

11 posted on 09/05/2003 3:01:22 AM PDT by boris (Education is always painful; pain is always educational.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson