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 ...
It's not uncommon to see contracts which prohibit amendments, or require them in writing. But you can amend them, often even orally, to delete that provision and substitute a new one. That is a long-standing principle of law.
I'm not suggesting that such a prohibited amendment would survive court scrutiny, or much less that we can orally amend the Constitution, but I would suggest that it's less clear than it might appear.
I can read and understand the plain English of the 2nd, especially the word "people" as in the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Any govt JBT who tries to take my gun away will find out just how determined I am to honor the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution.
Liberals be damned.
Well, let's just take Supercat's point for example, that all states are entitled to equal representation. How is that an undeniable truth?
I think I can make at least a plausible argument that Texas ought to have a bigger vote in the Senate than Vermont. I understand the arguments against it, but I'd hardly call it something which is obvious to all.
How do you figure? The people weren't a party to it, didn't ratify it, and weren't really consulted. It's a contract between the states with the people as the intended third party beneficiaries.
Thats not going to happen.
It's what separates the citizens of the USA from the subjects of the rest of the worlds governments.
Reinhardt thinks we are subjects.
Well, let's just take Supercat's point for example, that all states are entitled to equal representation. How is that an undeniable truth?
I doubt it is a 'basic principle of individual liberty'. It's an arguable point of exactly how our government should be structured.
I think I can make at least a plausible argument that Texas ought to have a bigger vote in the Senate than Vermont. I understand the arguments against it, but I'd hardly call it something which is obvious to all.
Then you should be able to understand my main point, and answer the question: - "Why would you, [or anyone] support such a violation of liberty?" - from my last post.
Do you mean to say by your words, that such an amendment would void the entire Constitution itself?
--Boot Hill
How do you figure? The people weren't a party to it, didn't ratify it, and weren't really consulted. It's a contract between the states with the people as the intended third party beneficiaries.
Why would you, [or anyone] support such a view of our founding principles, of our constitution? Why do you want state governments to have control over constitutional liberties, and our individual rights?
If people want to view it the way you're advocating, I don't really have a problem with it. It certainly sounds more noble and serious.
Yes, provided such amendments are agreed to by all contract participants. Suppose, however, that a contract contains provisions whereby a certain subset of the original signers can make amendments to it, but with certain exceptions. Would not the removal of those exceptions require unanimous consent, as distinct from the subset consent required of other changes?
The fact that the officers of the state militias were appointed by the states was enough to ensure that the feds couldn't run the militias and force them to do things that weren't acceptable to the states(like ending slavery).
You have to understand that at the time the Constitution was written, the Feds were basically powerless and at the mercy of the States, a far cry from the situation today, this circumstance not an accident, by the way.
This being said, basing an opinion on whether individual citizens have a right to bear arms on the "militia" clause of the Constitution is patently absurd, individualownership of all types of arms was a fact of life as normal as todays citizen owning an automobile.
The right of an individual citizen to own a firearm is clear.
We are the people, our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
If 10,00 Floridians decide to form a militia, however, it will be subject to Federal control and authority in defense of the nation.
There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.
This is so simple and self evident that it is astounding that leftist scum Federal judges in the 9th circus would dare to INTENTIONALLY obfuscate and usurp the intent of the founding fathers and the Constitution.
The Feds have no authority in the Constitution over the type of firearm an INDIVIDUAL may own, neither do the states except over citizens which are members of the militia when on duty.
Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, states did exist as largely independent entities which had their own constitutions (generally including bills of rights), but which had control over individual rights subject to the limits expressed in those constitutions. Since the states were presumed to have authority over their people, they thus also had authority to act as entities on the people's behalf.
It should be noted that when the Constitution was ratified, many states had explicit constitutional provisions protecting the right to keep and bear arms, but some explicitly excluded concealed weapons from that provision. I have seen nothing to suggest that the U.S. Constitution was explicitly intended to overturn those explicit exclusions.
On the other hand, I would suggest that (1) a state which allows any citizens to carry concealed weapons must make such right available to all, except that the right may be forfeited if people are convicted of serious crimes under due process of law; (2) a state must provide some reasonable means by which citizens may carry weapons for self-defense; it may require them to be carried openly, or it may require them to be concealed, but it cannot allow people to be punished for carrying openly (calling it "disturbing the peace" etc.) if they are forbidden from carrying concealed.
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.