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)

[Joe Hadenuf]

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.

You surely don't believe that the intentions of banning private gun ownership is just going to be isolated to California do you? Better look at the big picture, and that picture already extends far beyond the borders of Cal.

[Publius6961]

You mean there's no such thing as an independent judiciary?

*GASP*

[Joe Brower]

I concur with your statements. It would not surprise me, however, if the SCOTUS exhibits it's honored tradition of spinelessly shying away from such a decision, as they did with Solicitor General Ted Olsen's assistance in the case of U.S. vs. Emerson.

I have heard statements that waiting a bit longer in order for GW to appoint a couple of conservatives to the Supreme Court would be good here. I would rather have this issue decided on NOW, since I feel we already have a sufficient strength in the SCOTUS to decide rightly on this long-suffering topic.

[jjm2111]

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.

Really??? And the NRA was trumpeting what a wunderkind Ashcroft is?

[goldstategop]

True. I can't see the conservative states beyond the Left Coasts do it. Though I'd hazard a guess some Blue States would. Best case scenario, we'd probably wind up in a situation like Roe and liberals are just not going to be able to ban private ownership of guns in all 50 states for obvious reasons. That is the reality and the Nine Circus Clowns can do nothing about it despite all their blather to the contrary.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

When I first heard of Ashcroft for the AG, I thought he would be great.

[AnnaZ]

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 ...

 

Ohmigosh... BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh, IJ, when you're good you're goooooooooooood.

[jjm2111]

Not anymore, I gather.

[aristeides]

Now that plaintiffs have lost their appeal, how does the Justice Dept step in and appeal it to SCOTUS? The Justice Dept was never involved.

If the plaintiffs now petition the SCOTUS for certiorari, the Justice Dept can file an amicus brief with the court in support of that petition.

[Mr. Mojo]

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

Then the 9th Circuit Court of Schlemils is at odds with George Bush, John Ashcroft, and the Founding Fathers.

[c-b 1]

As I have been saying for months, where is the call to impeach these judges?

[The Toll]

The 2nd was written in plain English for a reason. There is no need for scholars or court rulings. Anyone that attempts to deny these individual rights has no power over me while I still breath.

[Area51]

The Soap Box
The Ballot Box
The Jury Box
And the Ammo Box.

[Noumenon]

They keep pushing the ticket, it'll be Romanian term limits instead of impeachment.

[oldfart]

Yes, there is. See post #35.

[Blood of Tyrants]

No, there was still some charge that was allowed to stand. Think about it, if you have been acquitted, you would be a free man and there would be no reason to appeal and the state cannot further prosecute you. If the judge had dismissed the charge, then the state could appeal to have the charge reinstated, (I think).

[Dog Gone]

I think this decision is wonderful.

Without it, the Supreme Court would be unlikely to address the issue, and it's certainly time to do it.

Timing is the question. There will be retirements in the Court and nomination battles. Whether this case will be heard before any of those retirements is the question.

I would certainly prefer Stevens to be gone first and replaced, because a 5-4 decision might go either way.

[semaj]

"If the SCOTUS does not uphold the individual right then I would suggest we are no longer in the awkward time."

Keeping my eyes and ears open.

[geopyg]

The article in the Seattle Times (copied from the LA Times) says the "appeals court upheld California's 1999 law which prohibits the manufacture, sale or import of weapons including grenade lauchers, semiautomatic pistols with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, semiautomatic RIFLES that CAN use detachable magazines, and guns with barrels that CAN be fitted with silencers."

Okay, I know that my dear old dad's deer rifle (semiauto)that he passed on to me has a detachable magazine (5 shot). I guess that means I don't move to California.

Now I have a question. Can't any barrel be fitted with a silencer?

Now, some other quotes from the article:

"This should drive a stake through the heart of the individual-rights position". Matthew Nosanchuk, senior litigation counsel for the Violence Policy Center in Washington. (Good for him to live in Washington. If he doesn't like violence he's free to live so he can be safe because they have such strong gun laws.)

Now here's more: "The right to keep and bear arms, concluded Judge Reinhardt, is different from owning or possessing them. (Huh?)

Reinhardt also said the Second Amendment was adopted at the urging of individuals who were concerned about the federal goverenment having too much power."


These guys JUST DON'T GET IT!! The scary part is - maybe we're the ones that don't get it. THIS IS THE LAW in California.