Supreme Court Rejects Gunmakers' Appeal

KRON ^ | September 4, 2003 | Associated Press

[FreedomCalls]

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.

[FreedomCalls]

Was this expected?

[DoughtyOne]

I really do think it's time to impeach the Supreme Court en mass and start over. These fools have never read the Constitution.

[Nebr FAL owner]

I don't have faith that the Supremes will honestly give the 2nd Amendment a honest hearing on the simple grounds that they are part of the corrupt political class that has as religeous faith that we the people are to stupid to wipe ,flush,wash hands in the proper sequence when we use the toilet,let alone run our own lives, so the private ownership of arms which is a direct challenge to them & the notion that they have of "moral superiority" will eventually be stripped away. The judges understand that simply stating all private guns are now forbidden would start a dirty little war that would get THEM killed .

[Atlas Sneezed]

Bang

[Atlas Sneezed]

This was a "commerce clause" case, and no one on the side of freedom wins those.

Also, the article deceptively says that the court "rejected an appeal" and that the plaintiffs "lost an appeal," when in reality the court simply declined to hear the case, as they do for 99+% of applications for certiorari.

[FreedomCalls]

I have seen film of someone high in the government in the 30s appearing at a hearing in Congress. He was saying that they thought the government did not have the authority to ban weapons and that is the reason the administration (Rooseveldt?) was requesting the $200 NFA tax law. How we have changed. Now they don't even bother with trying to get Congress to pass a law, they just get a President to issue an executive order. The constitution has not changed. So what happened?

[StriperSniper]

The constitution has not changed. So what happened?

The sheeple gave up.

: (

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Here is a supreme court decision that lists the rights of all free citizens in the US. Dred Scott vs Sanford.

This part is often eliminated from readings with an elipsis......


....It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.

[epow]

Justice Department lawyers urged the court to reject the appeal.

Way to go Pubbies, you blow gun owners a kiss with one hand while you stab us in the back with the other. Bush and a bunch of Pubbie congressmen wouldn't be in office today if not for the votes of millions of gun owners who were fed up with the Democrat's unconstitutional gun laws. For that we keep getting our teeth kicked in by the same people we put in office. But I guess that's supposed to be OK because Ashcroft said he believes in the 2nd Amendment. Or maybe he was talking about some other 2nd Amendment the rest of us don't know about.

I don't personally have any desire to own either a Tec-9 or a Streetsweeper, but I will defend any law-abiding American's very clear Constitutional right to own as many of them as he or she can afford.

[DoughtyOne]

Bush should have made a recess appointment of his judge. He should have telegraphed that he would do so from here on out, or the dems could actually participate in votes from here on out, their choice.

[45Auto]

The constitution has not changed. So what happened?

What happened is that politicians came to the belief that the citzens would only manage to come up with a little whining as their rights were stripped away, that no direct action would result, and that the power of government had become so great that any armed or forceful resistance would be crushed. Once they came to that realization, it was all downhill to tyranny from there.

[tpaine]

DoughtyOne wrote:

"I really do think it's time to impeach the Supreme Court en mass and start over. These fools have never read the Constitution."


Justice Department [Bush/Ashcroft] 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.
[Lying thru their teeth]




Impeach just the Court? How bout the
Republocrat legislators & administrations who write/sign the gun 'laws' and then enforce them?

It's time to bite the bullet and admit our whole political system is flawed beyond repair.

[marktwain]

``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. [Lying thru their teeth]

I believe this is called "begging the question" . What does the above have to do with the regulation of interstate commerce?? If the above is accepted as "proof" of interstate commerce, name something that is *not* interstate commerce.

[wardaddy]

I would suggest brown dial with the brown and gold bezel and not the massive Submariner style band but the more discreet Jubilee band....just my taste

I'm poor now (7 dependents) and rely on an old Omega wind up, a Gruen curvex, and a fake Lange and Sohn.

I bought my wife a nice Muhle Glashutte for her birthday.

Some of the newer German watches are fantastic buys.

I bought my first SS Submariner NIB in St Martin for 650 bucks in 84...lol...what are they now NIB?....3750 or so....ridiculous.

Good Luck

I have my eye on a used IWC Portofino or a Dubey. I like Jorge Schauer and Sinn/Bell and Ross too.

Sorry for the watch rant.

[FixitGuy]

I have searched and searched but find no mention of semi-automatics in the Second Amendment....

What am I missing?

[RogueIsland]

And once again it appears the USSC has managed to duck and cover on hearing a 2nd Amendment case. Of course, given their current flirtation with European legal fashions, maybe that's not such a bad thing...

[FixitGuy]

The guys who wrote the Second Amendment went to great pains to make it short, concise and perfectly clear.

What don't they understand?

I only own a BB gun, but this issue REALLY boils my blood about the Libs and the joke we have for a "Supreme Court"

[DoughtyOne]

Here's my rebuttal, "".

[FreedomCalls]

I only own a BB gun

You hear the argument a lot -- that if the Second Amendment means what it says then no weapons are prohibited up to and including nuclear weapons, and you don't want that, right? The argument is that the founding fathers would never have allowed semi-automatic or full automatic assault weapons, grenades, bazookas, etc, that they are too destructive in private hands. Well, guess what? The founding fathers would have allowed assault weapons. In Section 8, paragrah 11 they specifically grant Congress the power "to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal." A "Letter of Marque" was a commission issued by Congress to a privately owned war vessal or "privateer" that allowed it to operate (make war upon the enemy) in the name of the government to distinguish it from a pirate ship operating for profit. Privateers were the weapons of mass destruction of their time. Can you imagine the effect a great sailing ship decked out with 30 or so cannon could make upon a small port city? Yet this destructive force was in the hands of a private person and was authorized as such by the Constitution. So it appears the founding fathers had no problems with massively destructive weapons in private citizens hands. Anyone disagree?