Ruling: Second Amendment does not provide an individual right to own or possess guns

California Appellate Court via Met News ^ | 12/5/02 | Allan J. Favish

[AJFavish]

-Individual Rights-

Individual plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the California Assault Weapons Control Act since the Second Amendment does not provide an individual right to own or possess guns or other firearms. Equal Protection Clause does not invalidate provision of AWCA granting an exception from assault weapon restriction for off-duty officers since allowing such officers to perform law enforcement functions is a rational basis for the exception. Exception from assault weapon restriction for retired officers promotes no valid state interest and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Silveira v. Lockyer - filed Dec. 5, 2002

Cite as No. 0115098

Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1202%2F0115098

[gatex]

The other California case is --- Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996)

[anobjectivist]

California is in the process of terminating its existence.

[sailor4321]

Well, there is one bright side to the ruling. California gun laws contain mamy blanket exemptions for former peace officers. As a result, too many cops don't think gun laws are a bad thing and say so (with their profession adding credence and weight to what they say). Now, many segments of California gun law are of questionable constitutionality, violating the equal protection clause as they do. This should have the effect of making police more solicitous of second amendment rights....

[sailor4321]

By the way, did the US Attorney General weigh in on this case (perhaps by filing a friend of the court brief)? If not, WHY NOT?

If he didn't, maybe a bunch of us should be writing to him to ask why and to the President to complain....

[IronJack]

allowing such officers to perform law enforcement functions is a rational basis for the exception.

But the right of any citizen to defend him/herself isn't????

[coloradan]

This decision held that retired cops don't have any Second Amendment rights either - so-called "assault weapons" and banned from retired cops too.

[FreePaul]

... allowing such officers to perform law enforcement functions is a rational basis for the exception.

Most places can't or won't get on duty officers to perform law enforcement functions. All the more reason for armed citizens.

[IronJack]

Don't ordinary citizens have some limited powers of arrest and detention (so-called "citizens' arrest")? Doesn't that power confer on them the same "exception" as nominal law enforcement officers?

Or are there two classes of American citizens: those who have the right to keep and bear arms and those who don't? I must have missed that clause in the Second Amendment. It's so wordy, you know.

[sailor4321]

I understand one of the judges used a quote from "Parade" magazine (the fish wrapper you get with your Sunday paper) and another from Besiliedes (?) debunked book in his/her decision. I always thought that the fact that most judges and lawyers have never actually read the Miller case was unprofessional; this takes unprofessionalism to new depths.

Actually, wouldn't that be reason enough right there for asking for a SCOTUS review: valid legal decisions are supposed to be based on the facts and the law. Besiliedes' book has been shown to be a fraud and "Parade" magazine hardly qualifies as a source for legal citation....

[upchuck]

This kind of judicial BS is exactly why I kept pounding and pounding that last month's elections were all about JUDGES. Thank God for the outcome. Dubya now has the tools he needs to begin reversing this mess. True, judges serve for life, but, fortunately, they do die eventually :) Perhaps Reinhardt will leave us soon?

[sailor4321]

That's my point. People (retired cops) who were neutral or even for gun control because they were unaffected are now, by this decision, affected in many ways.

[sailor4321]

More evidence of this is the fact that the LA police chief has asked the Feds to intervene in the gang situation in LA. He says there are 100,000 gang members and his police force is not able to deal with them.

I do believe, however, that at some point the nickel will drop and lots of people will realize that 100,000 gang members represent a breakdown in law and order threat that no police force can control --- and they will suddenly see a need to arm themselves.

[LisaFab]

Correct. Rights come from Nature, (God, Providence or whatever) the Bill of Rights spells out what the government's restrictions are.

[sailor4321]

I think you raise one helluva good point here. California law does provide for citizen's arrest. Further, it gives law enforcement no more right to use deadly force than it gives ordinary citizens. The only "priviliege" it grants the police is the right to carry loaded guns in public places and on public thoroughfares.

Sounds to me like the 9th's thinking here was very, very shallow....but is anyone surprised at this?

[45Auto]

I'm not so sure that anything will happen with the US SC. Yes, there are now two very conflicting decisions about the 2nd coming from the 5th and the 9th Circuits. The issue is "ripe". But Solicitor General Olsen argued successfully against the SC taking up the Emerson case. The Bush Administration is on record as supporting AW bans. So, my bet is that the SC will not consider this case.

There now exists in this Republic a conspiracy of all three branches of government to deny Constitutional rights when it comes to the 2nd. What recourse is there?

[heyhey]

[Aric2000]

There is a conspiracy, I think that Ashcroft and Bush are biding their time right now. The SCOTUS is TOO close to take a case for the 2nd to it yet.

We need 2 more conservative judges on the bench before we give the SCOTUS a true 2nd amendment case.

The 9th is trying to force the issue before WE are ready, well, the DOJ is not going to force the issue until we are locked and loaded and cannot lose.

It's going to happen, it is just timing.

Maybe I am dreaming, but HERE'S HOPING!!!

[go star go]

I'm pretty sure they have to. Both courts explicitely made conflicting statements about what the second amendment means. SCOTUS cannot allow that to stand. That's a dangerous precedent for future cases. Right now, as we speak, I have a constitutional right to own guns because I live in the 5th. If I move to the 9th I lose that right. The constitution cannot have two meanings...

[Hostage]

Mexico actually never had it. The territory was claimed by many interests.

In any event, California needs to be taken back not given away!

[goldstategop]

The Nine Circus is full of wacko and loony liberals. This ruling is just like what you'd expect out Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco. That appellate court has always been a national joke for sometime and it goes without saying this ruling is completely based on liberal ideology and not on case precedent and the Constitution. Thus there's a very excellent chance the clowns on the Nine Circus will be reversed (and most of their rulings have been) on appeal by the U.S Supreme Court. Keep an eye out on this one, folks.