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.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Without comment? Without a freaking comment? Let me get this straight. They reject an argument that banning firearms is unconstitutional and then don't cite the constitutional authority upon which they base their decision. Anybody who thinks this law "substantially affects interstate commerce" is a bloody idiot. We truly ARE doomed.

[tpaine]

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.

Yep. the most bizarre part of the JD lawyers above plea is the assumption that "local prohibitions" on assault weapons are constitutional.

Ashcroft allows this type of irrational & stupid argument to take place on his watch? - Crazy.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I think you are looking at this wrong. The two companies challenged the law under the interstate commerce clause NOT under the under the 2nd Amendment. The interstate commerce clause has been so abused that the Congress just mumbles something about the interstate commerce clause and the majority of the time the courts let it go.

[tpaine]

Your usual doughyboy comment. Congrats.

[facedown]

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.

Thank you.

[FreedomCalls]

Here's my rebuttal, "".

Your usual doughyboy comment. Congrats.

It's a joke. See, the Court rejected the case without comment so Doughyboy rebutted their rejection without comment as well.

[DoughtyOne]

I hope you know I agreed with you.

[Blood of Tyrants]

So what happened?

The really worst thing that happened was when our forefathers neglected to put mandatory term limits in the Constitution.

The second worst thing that happened was when the 17th Amendment was passed making the Senator elected by popular vote of the people. They then became beholden to the people and special interest groups with money instead of the state who appointed.

Between these two mistakes, Congress is so busy trying to stay in office that they gave away their power to various agencies and the executive branch they in turn abdicated it to the judiciary.

[DoughtyOne]

That's a good point. I don't like any infringements. If your troops are tied up elsewhere, doesn't it stand to reason the populace could still be called on to defend the nation? Of course it does. And it ticks me off to see the courts take step after step to prevent us from defending ourselves.

[MindBender26]

They are asked to review tens of thousands of cases a year, but can only take about 1%. This case was not accepted.

[tpaine]

How was I to tell?

[DoughtyOne]

To: DoughtyOne

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.

13 posted on 09/04/2003 6:09 PM PDT by tpaine ( I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but politics keep getting in me way. ArnieRino for Governator!)
 

To: tpaine

Here's my rebuttal, "".

19 posted on 09/04/2003 6:45 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
 

Here is your post, and my response.  I agreed with your comments so there was no need for a rebuttal.  I'm sorry that was not as clear as I thought it would be to you.  I thought you'd get a chuckle out of it.

No big deal.  I have a lot of sympathy for the views you express here.  They show frustration with what's going on, and a bit of animosity thrown in for effect.

We have fallen in love with a beautiful woman who has been presented to us as a chaste woman of worth.  What we are waking up to is that our nation is for sale to the highest bidder, and as often as possible.  It sucks.  When the reality hits me, I feel like I'm seventeen years old being dumped all over again by someone who wasn't what I thought she was.

Our nation has been subverted by evil men.

[FreedomCalls]

Oh, sorry.

[DoughtyOne]

I appreciate the comment here, but I think you should take a look at my comment 2 on this thread.  I think it will give you some sense of where I'm coming from on this issue.

I was agreeing with TPaine's comments here, not ridiculing him.

As for your thoughts here, I agree that this is a big problem.  I've been aware of it and speak out against it every chance I get.

Any questions?

[DoughtyOne]

No problem at all.

D1