Skip to comments.
9th Circuit upholds gun restrictions - Says individuals have limited weapons rights (more info)
azstarnet. ^
Posted on 12/06/2002 2:05:37 AM PST by chance33_98
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
To: chance33_98
So? This is the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals and they never get anything right.
2
posted on
12/06/2002 2:07:43 AM PST
by
Hunble
To: chance33_98
Well, if the 9th says that the second amendment only
applies to the ability of citizens to form militias,
then that means the guys down on the border with Mexico
are in the right!
3
posted on
12/06/2002 5:17:34 AM PST
by
G-Bear
To: *bang_list
To: chance33_98
Reinhardt, generally considered to be one of the nation's most liberal jurists,... if he is so liberal, why does he continually rule to restrict things...
5
posted on
12/06/2002 7:00:58 AM PST
by
teeman8r
To: chance33_98
I'm confused. If the admendment protects the right of the people to form effective militias, who supplies the arms for those militias? Is it the government that is supposed to arm us so we can be effective? And if so, just what will they arm us with if not "assault" rifles.
6
posted on
12/06/2002 7:07:59 AM PST
by
Brad C.
To: chance33_98
And so the 9th Circuit continues in it's quest to be the most overturned court in the land...
Nothin' to see here folks, keep movin'
To: chance33_98
The 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals on Thursday unanimously upheld most aspects of a California law restricting sales and ownership of semiautomatic firearms sometimes called assault weapons. "The 9th Circuit"... those words are suffcient to ignore anything that follows!
8
posted on
12/06/2002 7:14:27 AM PST
by
ExSES
To: Dan from Michigan
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? Which do you prefer, Emerson or a test of a right to own assault weapons?
To: Admin Moderator
Should this have been breaking news?
To: teeman8r
Justice Reinhardt's wife Mona Ripston belongs to the ACLU. Today liberals believe in collectivist rights. You see according to the Nine Circus clowns, only the state has rights. So in a twisted sort of way their ruling makes perfect sense. All the same, its ahistorical, un-American, and unconstitutional.
To: goldstategop
Reinhardt is 71 years old, going on 72. We can only hope that he is thinking of retirement.
To: Austin Willard Wright
Reinhardt is 71 years old, going on 72. We can only hope that he is thinking of retirement.He just did us a huge favor. Liberals usually try to be much more subtle that this. Reinhardt, IMO, wrote this decision in stark langauge that almost demands a SCOTUS review.
13
posted on
12/06/2002 7:38:56 AM PST
by
dirtboy
To: dirtboy
Two circuit courts have now written diametrically opposed opinions on the second amendment. It's now ripe for the SCOTUS.
14
posted on
12/06/2002 7:42:04 AM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: dirtboy
I hope the SC waits a couple of years. I don't feel comfortable with the present court deciding such a case....without one or two more new additions.
To: goldstategop
Isn't Reinhardt the same judge who said the pledge of allegiance was unconstitutional? The guy who wrote the Emerson opinion has a much better rep, IMHO.
16
posted on
12/06/2002 7:53:11 AM PST
by
hchutch
To: hchutch
I dunno. Reinhardt is as liberal as the rest of the wackos on the Left Coast. The Los Angeles Times must be having gasps of collective multiple orgasms this morning and the liberals are for the moment at least, in Seventh Heaven.
To: goldstategop
The Brady Act case shows we have five votes (O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia, and Rhenquist). This will go the same way. I'd feel better if we had another vote or two, but we may be stuck with the Court we have unless Stevens or Ginsburg decides to retire.
18
posted on
12/06/2002 8:03:39 AM PST
by
hchutch
To: chance33_98
The ABC radio news feed left out the part about this being a 9th circuit court decision. Meaning we can expect it will be overturned in about 8 nanoseconds.
19
posted on
12/06/2002 8:08:10 AM PST
by
skeeter
To: Carry_Okie
I no longer worry about the legality of having guns in my home.
When I joined and served in the Army for twenty years, it was to defend and protect our Constitution.
Today, I am too old to actually fight.
However, it is still my duty to supply the arms and ammunition that may be needed by our young patriots, if it is ever required in the future.
On that issue, I know my duties as a citizen and no longer care what new laws are written.
Laws which are in violation of this basic principle, will be ignored..
20
posted on
12/06/2002 8:17:45 AM PST
by
Hunble
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson