Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Calif. ruling called gun-control landmark
United Press International ^ | 12/6/2002 8:39 AM | National Desk

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)


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; californiarkba
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-139 next last
To: Liberal Classic
doesn't say anything about citizens being allowed to own semi-automatic weapons or any other firearms.

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.

81 posted on 12/06/2002 10:10:27 AM PST by Mulder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
Exactly. The 2nd doesn't allow people to do anything, rather the opposite. It bars the government from doing a thing. Just another lawyer debating what the meaning of 'is' is. Obviously, the 9th circuit has a problem understanding "right of the people shall not be infringed."

82 posted on 12/06/2002 10:17:26 AM PST by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Area51; Travis McGee; Jeff Head; TEXASPROUD; Joe Brower; Noumenon
The Soap Box
Campaign Finance Reform and politically correct speech codes are taking away this option.

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

83 posted on 12/06/2002 10:26:26 AM PST by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
At this point the Supreme Court of the United States has not yet taken up the issue of the conflicts among circuits. The time has come for it to do so but the question is will they do it?

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

84 posted on 12/06/2002 10:29:50 AM PST by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: All
In their decision the Ninth Circus stated on page 33, "Historical research shows that the use of the term 'bear arms' generally referred to the carrying of arms in military service -- not the private use of arms for personal purposes."

I'm glad they are arguing that our military should be armed.... I'd hate to have an unarmed military...
85 posted on 12/06/2002 10:41:26 AM PST by ricer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: ricer1
I agree. Without these people to read the Constitution to us, we might not realize that the 2nd Amendment was written to ensure the Government wouldn't step in to disarm our military. Wouldn't it stink to go into battle without your weapons...
/sarcasm off
86 posted on 12/06/2002 10:48:54 AM PST by pgyanke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Isn't this the same collection of nitwits who said the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional?

Isn't there some way to purge the courts of idiots like this??

Yes, Judges may be impeached and removed from office.

87 posted on 12/06/2002 11:20:06 AM PST by IMHO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: The Toll
You just have to ask yourself, what part of ",the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.". Nothing else needs to be said, it is all right there in the last half of the 2nd amendment.
88 posted on 12/06/2002 11:21:54 AM PST by Big Mack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: The Toll
You just have to ask yourself, what part of ",the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."is so confusing to the lefties? Nothing else needs to be said, it is all right there in the last half of the 2nd amendment.
89 posted on 12/06/2002 11:28:29 AM PST by Big Mack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
What he was appealing, IIRC, was his being prohibited from possessing a firearm after his wife got a TRO issued against him when their marriage fell apart.

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.

90 posted on 12/06/2002 11:38:46 AM PST by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
I'm no jurist expert, but you would think that this is exactly what the USSC is for - to settle conflicting rulings of the federal circuit courts.

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.

91 posted on 12/06/2002 11:42:20 AM PST by MrB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; Noumenon
It's much later than we think! The Bill of Rights was DEMANDED by the Anti-Federalists, the folks led by Patrick Henry that(rightfully) didn't trust the federal govt. Our Constitution limits the power of govt, it does not limit the rights of Citizens. Things are going to get very interesting before this is resolved!
92 posted on 12/06/2002 12:01:41 PM PST by jsraggmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
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?
93 posted on 12/06/2002 1:00:36 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IMHO
Is there somewhere we can write Bush to express our outrage at the collection of idiots which comprise this court?

Politicians listen to letters.
94 posted on 12/06/2002 1:12:16 PM PST by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
That's California for you - the land of fruits and NUTS! Some women in California are forced to commit acts of civil disobedience by carrying concealed guns. That is because THEY DON'T WANT TO BE RAPED, TORTURED, BEHEADED OR MURDERED! (Some California women are funny that way.) For victory & freedom!!!
95 posted on 12/06/2002 1:15:06 PM PST by Saundra Duffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Is this a "penumbra"?

96 posted on 12/06/2002 1:19:13 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
You've just named the worms in the can that they're afraid to open.
97 posted on 12/06/2002 1:23:31 PM PST by MrB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
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.

Of course they can. So can I, with consent of the parties. That's a long way from actually litigating the appeal, however.

98 posted on 12/06/2002 1:46:55 PM PST by GnL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: ricer1
I'm glad they are arguing that our military should be armed.... I'd hate to have an unarmed military...
85 posted on 12/06/2002 10:41 AM PST by ricer1

Yeah, then we would ALL be known as Canadians! LOL

99 posted on 12/06/2002 2:06:31 PM PST by Area51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower; Squantos; harpseal; wardaddy; TEXASPROUD
Waiting for new USSC justices to better our hand is a dangerous game.

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.

100 posted on 12/06/2002 4:17:12 PM PST by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-139 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson