I prefer to have the most liberal (and overturned) circuit court in the nation parrot the claims of gun-control groups, and in a one-sided flawed decision proclaim that the 2nd Amendment does NOT confer individual rights. I would also like it if all the gun-control groups hitch their wagons to this ruling - so it can pull the collective lot over a cliff when SCOTUS overturns it. The 9th Circuit basically left SCOTUS no choice with the blunt language in this ruling.
Had the Bush administration chosen to pursue Emerson, this ruling would never have happened. Considering that, how satisfied are you that the Solicitor General is going to give this case its due?
It may not even now require the Solicitor General. Both sides are going to want both this case and Emerson appealed to SCOTUS. The long-awaited SCOTUS showdown is, IMO, finally taking shape, and will probably be heard in the 2003-04 SCOTUS session.
Which do you prefer, Emerson or a test of a right to own assault weapons?
Re: Emerson. The Appeals Court affirmed Cumming's ruling that the Second Amendment PROTECTS and indvidual right (very important to recognize that the Bill of Rights/Constitution doesn't grant a damn thing...that it protects that which we possess by virtue of our existence - natural/individual rights) to own firearms. It then went on to apply the wrong standard of analysis - the "rational basis" test. This test is easier to meet than the "strict scrutiny" test which is required to be applied to individual rights.
Re: Assault Weapons. Which definition will be used? The Military defines assualt weapons as those which can be switched from full auto to 3 round burst to semi-auto. The definition used by the 'grabbers and and the Courts is based upon cosmetics and the fact that a particular firearm is semi-auto.
If we had an honest Court, I would rather have them hear a ban on "assault weapons" because the Second Amendment was intended to guarantee the Right individuals to challenge a corrupt and despotic government through force of arms - therefore the Second Amendment grants a protection by it's original intent to weapons with military utility, i.e. "assault weapons" above all others.
The fools that cite Miller have never actually read the Government's brief in that case; or else they would keep as much distance between that case and their untenable position as possible.
I truly fear that SCOTUS will "split the baby" on this issue, rather than follow the Constitution. Such a decision will cause more harm than good and will force those of us that take our oaths to that Document seriously to re-examine the legitimacy of all three branches of Government in their current incarnation.
Cross your fingers. I have no desire to take a stand based on principle, but would do so because my oath before God demands that I do so.