Posted on 12/06/2002 7:24:08 AM PST by 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)
The second amendment doesn't "allow" anything. It simply enumerates Rights that we as a Free people already have.
What a bunch of tyrannical judges have to say about this issue is irrelevant, except for the fact that it puts them on the record as being "domestic enemies of the Constitution".
The bastards could repeal the 2nd amendment tomorrow, and every single American would still have the Right to keep and bear arms.
The Ballot Box
See Campaign Finance Reform raised by vote fraud.
The Jury Box
See the Ninth Circuit opinion and rulings regarding jury nullification for this going away.
And the Ammo Box.
The absolute last resort.
The appelate court cited such marvelous sources as a Parade magazine interview with Warren Burger and Arming America by Michael Bellesies (Sp??? - veracity none).
Stay well - STAY SAFE - STAY ARMED - YORKTOWN
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
Isn't there some way to purge the courts of idiots like this??
Yes, Judges may be impeached and removed from office.
I believe it was the Lautenberg Amendment to the '94 Crime Bill which retroactively made those who were the subject of a domestic TRO or had been convicted of certain domestic violence misdemeanors unable to possess a firearm.
It was my understanding at the time that the assault charge ("brandishing") was levelled against him by his wife and used to discredit him in the press. I'm nearly positive he was acquitted of that.
Tough situation.
The USSC could tell the 9th that they must review this before the full court (with a heavy armtwist of "we don't want this one").
BTW, did you hear Rush read Reinhardt's venom-filled, gun hating diatribe of an opinion?
Equated gun owners with McVeigh, mobs of armed racists and religious bigots.
Is this a "penumbra"?
Of course they can. So can I, with consent of the parties. That's a long way from actually litigating the appeal, however.
Yeah, then we would ALL be known as Canadians! LOL
We could very easily end up with more covert libs like Souter.
OTOH, even if the USSC declared no individual right, so what? They can vote 5-4 to repeal gravity or kill God, with the same effect.
If and when the USSC ever votes for the "collective interpretation", the shooting war will begin to restore the Constitution.
BTW, I was listening to Savage last night. He was taling about islamic sleeper cells committing terrorism in the USA after we attack Iraq, he said "no one is talking yet about the 30 million gun owning sleepers in our own 30 million man armed militia."
It sounded a lot like the "10 million deer rifle army" to me.
Read the last few chapters (20-23) when you can, the "shooting phase" begins there.
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.