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)

[NormsRevenge]

The 9th Circus Clown Council of Appalling Decisions..

Their Motto - Hey, We'se got an agenda here...We Don;t have to respect the Constitution.

[jonascord]

SCOTUS would rather clog dance in a mine field than accept this case. The longer they can cloud the idea of Rights held by the People versus Privileges allowed by the Government, the better.

Even if the Plague strikes SCOTUS and Bush replaces all nine, I'm not totally sure Ashcroft wants to go that far. A huge industry hangs in the balance, not to mention local police control of the population.

There are too many thugs with badges who hold with the "Us and Them" world view. The New York, Chicago, DC and LA PDs rely on a helpless population to retain control. They have convinced themselves of the Thin Blue Line myth, and they are not just going to walk away from that power. Certainly the ATF, FBI, INS, Park Service, Air Marshalls, Fish and Game, Poultry Inspectors, and every other Federal wanna-be who carries a gun are not going to be pleased to be out-gunned.

[unixfox]

COME AND TAKE IT !!

[Liberal Classic]

No, I'm saying this is the VPC's way of labelling gun ownership as racist.

[coloradan]

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

I'm glad that the Second Amendment allows police officers to own firearms. But that leaves a troubling question: How could police officers in other lands, or armies for that matter, possibly have guns if there is no corresponding right to bear arms in those places? Somehow there must be something special about RKBA here in America. I wonder, what could it possibly be?

[GnL]

What does the "W administration" have to do with whether the Supreme Court decides to take an appeal on this issue?

[jonascord]

Bullseye! Give the man a cigar! It sure worked in South Carolina, Georga, Alabama, and Texas!

[FreeTally]

What does the "W administration" have to do with whether the Supreme Court decides to take an appeal on this issue?

I believe the "W administration" recently petitioned the SCOTUS not to take up a 2A appeal.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

The SCOTUS was considering emerson, but were leaned on by Ashcroft and friends to put it off. The W justice dept put out their worthless statement about individual rights instead of settling the issue.

The justice department can bring this ruling to the SCOTUS.

It is time that they did.

[coloradan]

Can the plaintiffs of this case appeal to SCOTUS?

[Blood of Tyrants]

I suspect that the SC will order a review by the entire 9th Circuit Court. If the morons on the 9th come back with the same answer, the SC will take the case since the 5th and the 9th have ruled exactly opposite of each other.

[goodnesswins]

Can someone education me on just exactly what is considered an "assault rifle" in Californica? I'm not very well versed in guns, but I remember something about it covering a lot of NON auto guns....but I could be mistaken. Just curious.

[SirFishalot]

Its very important for the right type of 2nd case to make it up to SCOTUS, if the wrong type gets there it could end up bad for the 2nd, the problem with going to court is that once your there anything can happen, you dont want to run every case you disagree with up there because once SCOTUS rules, you are done, theres no appeal left if they rule against you.

[goodnesswins]

education = educate.....more COFFEE...NOW!

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Oh, there's still an appeal.
Just not the kind they'd want to see.

[FreeTally]

Im not very well versed in guns, but I remember something about it covering a lot of NON auto guns....,p> It has absolutely nothing to do with automatic guns. The law covers only semi-autos that look scary and hold more than 10 rounds. They had to be registered by a certain date or they became "illegal" to own in Kali. If you dont register it, you are a felon.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Emerson a poor test case. Dr. Emerson was not the most innocent of victims. Here, where the state arbitrarily confiscated firearms stating that the citizens had no RKBA is a MUCH better case.

[goldstategop]

Ahhhh... but but but my friend, liberals see the Constitution as an elastic, living document. They feel it means whatever liberal judges read it to mean.

[eureka!]

Paging the good Esquire for some cert. or en banc review and constitutional opinions....