Calif. ruling called gun-control landmark

United Press International ^ | 12/6/2002 8:39 AM | National Desk

[Liberal Classic]

SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 6 (UPI) -- A federal appeals court ruling upholding California's ban on assault rifles was being portrayed Friday as a landmark in the constitutional debate over the right to bear arms.

In a 72-page ruling issued Thursday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said the Second Amendment only guarantees the rights of states to organize a militia, and doesn't say anything about citizens being allowed to own semi-automatic weapons or any other firearms.

"With the federal assault weapons ban scheduled to sunset next Congress, the California law stands as one example of how to more effectively restrict these weapons of war," said Matt Nosanchuk, legislative counsel for the Violence Policy Center.

The Ninth Circuit's unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel was at odds with a Fifth Circuit ruling known as the Emerson decision upholding an individual's right to possess a weapon, stating that the Second Amendment pertained to the organization of an organized, state-sponsored militia, and not "an 'unregulated' mob of armed individuals."

"Individual rights advocates have waved the Emerson decision like a battle flag," Nosanchuk said in a statement. "All they have done is awaken a sleeping giant of clear legal thinking and sound historical analysis that finds that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own a gun."

The court agreed, however, that police officers that protect public safety were allowed to own firearms.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the state had no desire to take away the rights of people to hunt or to protect themselves and their homes, however the state was intent on keeping high-powered weapons off the streets.

"While I respect the rights of Californians to pursue hunting and sports-shooting, and of law-abiding citizens to protect their homes and businesses, there is no need for these military-style weapons to be on the streets of our state," Lockyer said.

There was no immediate word as to whether the Justice Department would appeal the ruling or seek a full court review; meanwhile some gun-owners groups concluded the ruling was flawed.

"I don't think the court gets it at all," Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America told the Los Angeles Times. "The court neglected to mention self-defense when discussing legitimate uses of guns."

(Reported by Hil Anderson in Los Angeles)

[Liberal Classic]

I've seen one other post on this. This is a different article.

Of course the court neglected self defense. In the eyes of a leftist, there's no such thing. When as the 9th Circuit ever promugated a ruling that made any sense?

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said the Second Amendment only guarantees the rights of states to organize a militia

Newsflash to the 9th Circcuit: Government don't have rights. People have rights. People give government authority to do a limited number of legitimate things.

"Individual rights advocates have waved the Emerson decision like a battle flag," Nosanchuk of the Violence Policy Center.

What's the most widely known battle flag? Maybe the Confederate Battle Flag? Nice way to connect gun ownership with racism there.

[HELLRAISER II]

To quote Charlton Heston "From my cold dead fingers!"

[Joe Brower]

MWLWN LABE

[goldstategop]

Its an ideological ruling from the Nine Circus clowns. Of course its just like the Sarah Brady anti-gun nuts and the liberal media to wax euphoric over it as though it where a divine decree from Heaven. It ain't nothing of the kind.

[Liberal Classic]

Thread Linky:

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

[dirtboy]

The Ninth Circuit's unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel was at odds with a Fifth Circuit ruling known as the Emerson decision upholding an individual's right to possess a weapon, stating that the Second Amendment pertained to the organization of an organized, state-sponsored militia, and not "an 'unregulated' mob of armed individuals."

"Individual rights advocates have waved the Emerson decision like a battle flag," Nosanchuk said in a statement. "All they have done is awaken a sleeping giant of clear legal thinking and sound historical analysis that finds that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own a gun."

Hey, Nosanchuk - how come you didn't mention the fact that the 9th Circuit has decisions overturned by SCOTUS far more often than any other circuit?

[Liberal Classic]

[IronJack]

A left-wing appeals court rules directly contrary to another more conservative ruling, and the left-wing decision is a "landmark." Then what was the conservative ruling?

[WorkingClassFilth]

True, but it will likely prompt appeals. I wonder if we're ready for that going to SCOTUS.

[Liberal Classic]

Left-wing decisions are always "landmark" or "ground breaking." Conservative decisions are always "steps backwards" or "dangerous." Didn't you get the memo? ;)

[goldstategop]

Yup we are. And this time there is NO WAY the SCOTUS will be able to AVOID ruling exactly what rights the Second Amendment does ENSURE Americans.

[WorkingClassFilth]

"Yup we are. And this time there is NO WAY the SCOTUS will be able to AVOID ruling exactly what rights the Second Amendment does ENSURE Americans."

Excuse my repost from another thread...

"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."

[Eric in the Ozarks]

This will not stand.

[upcountryhorseman]

This must not stand! Please, Someone, appeal this to
the Supreme Court.

[IronJack]

Didn't you get the memo?

I saw it posted in the men's room. I just thought the regular rolled stuff had run out ...

[pgyanke]

In a 72-page ruling issued Thursday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said the Second Amendment only guarantees the rights of states to organize a militia, and doesn't say anything about citizens being allowed to own semi-automatic weapons or any other firearms. ...

... California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the state had no desire to take away the rights of people to hunt or to protect themselves and their homes, however the state was intent on keeping high-powered weapons off the streets.

---

Okaaayyy...

So there's no right for the citizens to have guns but the government has no desire to take away the rights of citizens to have guns...

If their official decision reads like this, it should be an easy appeal.

[goldstategop]

What Attorney General Lockyer is saying is they won't ban handguns for now. But if this Nine Circus joke stands up on appeal to the SCOTUS you can be sure the next step will be to ban all private gun ownership in California.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

It's time for the W administration to step up to the plate. No more excuses. Let's settle this now.

It's time for a plain english statement from the highest court in the land affirming the plain truth of the second amendmant.

I won't be holding my breath.

[NormsRevenge]

.. the next step will be to ban all private gun ownership in California.

Good luck telling that to the street thugs in Oakland and LA... much less decent and god-fearing citizens who believe in the 2nd Amendment.

[A2J]

What's the most widely known battle flag? Maybe the Confederate Battle Flag? Nice way to connect gun ownership with racism there.

So you're saying that people who wave a Confederate flag are racists?