Posted on 12/06/2002 7:19:21 AM PST by Joe Brower
Court Upholds State Assault Weapons Ban
In a rebuff to the White House, U.S. appellate panel rules that the 2nd Amendment does not give individuals the right to keep and bear arms.br> By Henry Weinstein, Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles Times
December 6, 2002
A federal appeals court upheld California's assault weapons control act Thursday, ruling that there is no constitutional right for individuals to keep and bear arms.
The 3-0 decision, declaring that the 2nd Amendment protects only the right of states to organize and maintain militias, is flatly at odds with the position of the Bush administration and a decision last year by a federal appeals court in New Orleans.
California adopted the nation's most sweeping assault weapons ban in 1999. It prohibits the manufacture, sale or import of weapons including grenade launchers, semiautomatic pistols with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, semiautomatic rifles that use detachable magazines and guns with barrels that can be fitted with silencers.
Click the URL for the rest of the article. Requires free registration, unfortunately...
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
California adopted the nation's most sweeping assault weapons ban in 1999. It prohibits the manufacture, sale or import of weapons including grenade launchers, semiautomatic pistols with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, semiautomatic rifles that use detachable magazines and guns with barrels that can be fitted with silencers.
California Atty Gen'l Firearms Laws
semiautomatic pistols with a capacity of more than 10 rounds
Wrong: the magazines with capacities of over 10 rounds are banned from being sold/imported/manufactured/transferred to another person in California. But the handguns themselves are NOT banned, unless they have FIXED MAGAZINES, which are extremely rare.
semiautomatic rifles that use detachable magazines
Wrong: semi-auto rifles with detachable mags are only banned if they have any ONE of the following features: (A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. (B) A thumbhole stock. (C) A folding or telescoping stock. (D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher. (E) A flash suppressor. (F) A forward pistol grip.
guns with barrels that can be fitted with silencers
Wrong: Only handguns with detachable magazines and threaded barrels are banned. Rifles and handguns without detachable magazines are allowed to have threaded barrels.
I'm counting on our illustrious SCOTUS to do not a damned thing.
What state's rights are involved here, logajan? Go read the Tenth Amendment again. It says that state's rights do not include those rights denied to the state by the Constitution. And in that regard, the fundamental prohibition against infringement in the Second Amendment is not limited to infringement only by Congress, it prohibits any infringement whatsoever. Therefore, gun control is not a power reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment and is, in fact, prohibited to it by the Second Amendment.
Go peddle your libertarian claptrap somewhere else. This is an issue for honest conservatives.
--Boot Hill
You seem to need a little history lesson in how this whole issue has played out the last 200 years. It was originally held that the US Constitution only limited federal authority, not state authority. After the 14th amendment, the Supreme Court grudgingly started applying US Constitutional limits on state governments as well. Even to this day there is nonuniform application of US Constitutional restrictions on state governments versus the federal government.
The issue is not nearly as neatly settled even today as you seem to think, and there exists real division on the question even in conservative factions.
That is patently false. It has never been held that the US Constitution only limited federal authority, not state authority. There are numerous articles, sections and clauses of the Constitution that explicitly limit state authority including, most prominently, Art. 1, Sec. 10, entitled "Powers Prohibited to the States". That is why the phrase, "...nor prohibited by it to the states...", was included in the Tenth Amendment.
jlogajan condescends: "You seem to need a little history lesson..."
Before you sanctimoniously set yourself up any kind of teacher, you should at least learn the basics about what the Constitution, does in fact, say. Your demonstrably false assertion that the Constitution does not limit state authority, is a case in point.
--Boot Hill
John Marshall: "...an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."
to this assertion:
tpaine: "Thus, an amendment nullifying the 2nd would void the entire basis of our republic."
Do you mean that such an amendment to the Constitution would be "unconstitutional"? Since Chief Justice Marshall limited his holding to "acts" of the legislature and not "amendments" to the Constitution, how do you justify such a leap based on his actual words? Or do you mean to say that such an amendment would void the entire Constitution itself?
--Boot Hill
Can it be amended to take away some or all of fundamental individual liberties? Sure, if it gathers the necessary support to meet the hurdle required.
I think I would argue that the Founding Fathers would say that if it reaches that point, the people are entitled, and maybe even morally required, to overthrow the tyrants that caused that to happen. But it wouldn't be because an amendment was "unconstitutional." It would be because the Constitution no longer protects liberty.
An amendment which made the number of Senators from each state variable (based on population, GNP, number of movie stars in residence, or any other basis) would clearly be void from its inception unless either (1) it was ratified unanimously, or (2) every state which did not ratify it would have at least 1/(number of states) of the Senators unless or until such time as they ratified it.
The existing Seventeenth Amendment is perhaps questionable for much the same reason, since there are IIRC three states that were present at its ratification but have not ratified it themselves (any state that ratified the Seventeenth presumably consented to it; likewise any state that joined the Union after the Seventeenth was in force). Of course, even if the legislatures of those three states were found to have the power to appoint Senators themselves independent of the popular vote, I doubt any of them would want to do so.
I have, that is what prompted my question to you in the first place. Could you clarify your meaning: Do you mean to say that such an amendment would void the entire Constitution itself?
--Boot Hill
The Constitution specifically sets out how it may be amended, and it doesn't require unanimous vote. Once the original parties agreed to that voting mechanism (which they did by ratifying the Constitution), that's what is in effect, and it's legally and constitutionally binding.
The Constitution specifically sets out how it may be amended, and it doesn't require unanimous vote. Once the original parties agreed to that voting mechanism (which they did by ratifying the Constitution), that's what is in effect, and it's legally and constitutionally binding.
The Constitution, while generally allowing for amendments, expressly forbids any amendment which would deny any state equal representation in the Senate.
Which of its principles do you wish to claim are not 'undeniable truths'?
Essentially, it's a contract between the states, and as such it can be amended.
It's a permanent contract between the people & government, and can be amended within constitutional bounds. Fundamental rights cannot be violated in such amendments, imo.
Can it be amended to take away some or all of fundamental individual liberties? Sure, if it gathers the necessary support to meet the hurdle required.
Why would you, [or anyone] support such a violation of liberty?
I think I would argue that the Founding Fathers would say that if it reaches that point, the people are entitled, and maybe even morally required, to overthrow the tyrants that caused that to happen. But it wouldn't be because an amendment was "unconstitutional." It would be because the Constitution no longer protects liberty.
Exactly Marshalls point, without your reservation: -- "it wouldn't be because an amendment was "unconstitutional." -- I can't 'get' your reasoning about that.
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.