[Joe Brower]

Not suprisingly, yesterday the ultra-liberal judicial activists of the 9th Circuit have made a ruling that states that there is no individual right to arms stated in the Constitution. These are the same clowns who not so long ago determined the Pledge of Alligence to be unconstitutional because it included the words "Under God". What is most pronounced about this ruling is that one of the three 9th CC judges, Stephen Reinhardt, has seen fit to author a detailed opinion that is in direct contradiction to the 10/16/2001 study authored by Judges Garwood, DeMoss and Parker of the 5th District Court of Appeals when they remanded Judge Sam Cummings opinion in U.S. vs. Emerson.

As Clayton Cramer states on his weblog.

"Reinhardt quotes at length from the one-sided Chicago-Kent Law Review symposium issue published two years ago in which only those opposed to the individual rights view were invited--and paid for their articles. (This is almost unheard in scholarly publications.) Of course, Reinhardt cites the well-known soon-to-be former Professor Michael Bellesiles for support for the collective rights view, apparently unaware or unconcerned about Bellesiles's scholarly integrity problem."

The lines are now more clearly drawn than ever -- one for and one against. The time is ripe for the Supreme Court to step in and decide. Whether or not they will exhibit enough courage and duty to do so is another matter. They can very easily fall back on Solicitor General Olsen's arguments against hearing Emerson to refuse. When one reads and compares the two opinions, it is apparent the strengths of the 5th's pro-gun determination far outweight the weak arguments presented by the 9th in it's anti-freedom stance.

As I have stated before, the issue of whether or not the Second Amendment construes an individual, versus a collective, right needs to be decided by the SCOTUS. Either way, this will result in a win for gun owners -- if the 2A is deemed an individual right, then thousands of oppressive gun laws will be drawn into question and the stage will be set for a long overdue house-cleaning. If SCOTUS states that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms, this will motivate firearms owners into a much larger political body, forming a voting block that no politician can hope to ignore.

The 10/16/2001 decision by the 5th Circuit Court on U.S. vs. Emerson can be found here.

The 12/5/02 decision by the 9th Circuit Appeals Court can be found here.

[Joe Brower]

MWLWN LABE

[Gary Boldwater]

Does this mean that town and county police forces can't carry guns?

[WorkingClassFilth]

Maybe our collectivist friends feel that conditions are such that forcing a 2nd Amendment decision from the Supreme Court is a now-or-never proposition. With future propects for liberal bench receding, perhaps they feel that they better spend their political capital (and use their FBI files) to get the decision they want - IOW, collective rights.

[jlogajan]

Where are the "state's rights" crowd on this one???

[xsrdx]

California adopted the nation's most sweeping assault weapons ban in 1999.

Not quite, NJ, CT and MA ban possession.

It can get worse.

Repeal or sunset the 94 Crime Bill AW proviso or it WILL get worse.

[coloradan]

U.S. appellate panel rules that the 2nd Amendment does not give individuals the right to keep and bear arms.

That's right! The Bill Of Rights doesn't give any rights at all. It merely expresses pre-existing rights. You already have those rights and others, it just lists some of them for the benefit of those who would take them away.

[boris]

Editor
Los Angeles Times

Sir:

Your page-1 story about the inevitable ruling by the 9th circuit court of appeals is a yawner. Nobody expected that pack of feckless "activist judges" to be able to read the Bill of Rights anyway. Their ruling will, in due course, be reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court--as usual. The 9th circuit holds the honor of "most reversed by the Supreme Court" in the nation, and this unconstitutional ruling will only enhance their reputation.

--Boris

[ApesForEvolution]

Some day those of us that love California will have to take it back by force, it appears.

[Doomonyou]

Edward Abbey: "The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state controlled police and the military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy... If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government - and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."

There are not enough JBT's to go door to door and confiscate all the fire arms in this country.

Thomas Jefferson [A quote from Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939]: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

Amen.

[xm177e2]

The LA Times gets everything wrong! They're pathetic:

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.

[Atlas Sneezed]

My question for dicussion:

If the USSC overturns this 9th circuit decision, by finding that the 2nd is a right of individuals, can they rule in a manner that narrowly restores the rights of Californians without also overruling the various import bans, the 1986 law that halted production of civilian-ownable machine guns, and even the NFA of 1934?

Or is there a way that the supremes could overrule the 9th without going this far?

[msuMD]

I actually see this ruling as good news. First it will be overturned. Secondly, it will cause an explosion of new NRA memberships (sort of a free advertisment if you will). So in the end, it will be overturned and there will be thousands more NRA members. Win-win.

[Mat_Helm]

I do not care how you color the picture on this but the simple truth is that a branch of government has gone beyond interpreting the constitution and is now on a dangerous course. Anyone that trys to subvert the second ammendment to take away the individual right to arms has crossed the line. If the SCOTUS does not square this situation away promptly and definetivly than the elite idiots in government are begging for trouble that goes beyond passive resistance.

[tubebender]

The local radio news today reported a "shipment" of SKS "automatic" rifles were stolen from a local gun dealer before he could document them and said they they are illegal to own. I own guns but I am not up to date on the nitty gritty of what you can and what you can't in these type of weapons.

[wcbtinman]

I'm really tired of all of this nonsense. The 9th Circus (as Rush calls it) and for that matter, the USSC can decide anything they wish.

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.

[Rome2000]

If SCOTUS states that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms,

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.

[jwalsh07]

Stephen Halbrook, John Ashcroft and the second amendment

[Kevin Curry]

What is your state's constitutional RKBA provision? Do you know?

[Z-28]

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco is the most liberal left-wing court in the USA ...

"Last week, the Solicitor General of the United States informed the Supreme Court that the Department of Justice had decided to fundamentally change its interpretation of the Second Amendment.

"The SG is now arguing that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for purely personal use. Previously, DOJ had interpreted the Amendment as protecting a right to bear arms only in the context of forming or serving in a state militia. If the SG's new view is adopted by the courts, various gun control laws that previously seemed immune to constitutional attack will, in all likelihood, be struck down as infringing individuals' Second Amendment rights." -
http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/lazarus/20020516.html