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

Skip to comments.

Ninth Circuit Declares War on Gun Owners
Keep and Bear Arms ^ | 6 December 2002 | Dave Codrea

Posted on 12/06/2002 9:45:39 AM PST by 45Auto

The subversive traitors at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just dismissed a challenge to the "assault weapons' ban for lack of standing because "the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms."

Among their footnote citations: "Gun Control, A Historical Overview," by Michael Bellesilles.

Foremost in their mindset: claiming the Second Amendment is "a relatively obscure constitutional provision."

They lie and say the individual rights model has "never been adopted by any court until" Emerson, and reaffirm their support for the "collective right" model.

They then go on to quote Warren Burger-not from any legal opinion-but from Parade Magazine.

The remainder of the flawed historical analysis will be picked over in the days to come. The bottom line:

We have no "legal" recourse left to us. Obey or be destroyed.

Meanwhile, John Ashcroft continues to ignore over 20,000 signatures sent to him with the Petition for Enforcement of the Second Amendment imploring that he do his sworn duty and enforce the supreme law of the land.

If he continues to ignore us, and if the Supreme Court continues to evade its Constitutional responsibility by refusing to hear Second Amendment challenges, then there are only two options left: surrender or rebellion.

David Codrea is a co-founder and director for the national pro-rights media campaign, Citizens of America (CitizensOfAmerica.org), and an advisor and contributor for KeepAndBearArms.com. His professional writing is featured often in Guns and Ammo magazine. Additionally, he is the national coordinator for A Petition for the Enforcement of the Second Amendment (KeepAndBearArms.com/Petition). His archives can be accessed here: KeepAndBearArms.com/Codrea.

QUOTES TO REMEMBER The average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty — and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies. —H.L. MENCKEN


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: banglist; liberty; rkba; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 next last
Fight or become slaves.
1 posted on 12/06/2002 9:45:39 AM PST by 45Auto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
This will not stand.
2 posted on 12/06/2002 9:51:09 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
Pry it from our cold dead hands!
3 posted on 12/06/2002 9:52:13 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Yeah it is sick, makes me want to puke each time I hear a court ruling like this. You have to ask the question then, what group of people do they think this right is for? Themselves? The states? The ironic thing is this, liberals gush over Jeffersons letter concerning the establishment of a church state. Yet they fail to grasp this quote:

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms” – Thomas Jefferson

Or this one:
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime." - Cesare Beccaria, quoted by Thomas Jefferson
4 posted on 12/06/2002 10:03:15 AM PST by Jzen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Citing in the official court opinion a guy whose work in this area was so disgraced he was forced to resign despite being a tenured professor - who are generally damn near impossible to get rid of - is the intellectual equivalent of flipping the Constitution the bird!
5 posted on 12/06/2002 10:04:45 AM PST by winin2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Perhaps those in CA could learn from the Canadian model: failing to register, registering multiple times, registering anything w/ a serial number....you get the point. The only question that remains is: Do those north of the border have more backbone than those on the left coast? Canada has no such protection as the 2nd Amendment yet they seem to understand it.
6 posted on 12/06/2002 10:05:37 AM PST by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
Agreed. Hey, didn't Bush say a month or so ago that barring arms IS an individual right?
7 posted on 12/06/2002 10:07:23 AM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto

8 posted on 12/06/2002 10:08:43 AM PST by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
"Among their footnote citations: "Gun Control, A Historical Overview," by Michael Bellesilles."

Not that they have the cajones to do this on their own, it's just that they have annointed the jack-boot as the rightful possessor of useful firearms. The grateful jack-boot will in turn honor their masters by obediently moving to crush anyone that isn't likewise grateful and obedient.

It's not that the jack-boot has cajones either. They were born w/o them, and the brains needed to control them. The jack-boot you see, is just like a vicious dog with blood red eyes, that spends his waking hours drooling and hunting for something to devoir.

Molon Labe!

9 posted on 12/06/2002 10:13:03 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 556x45
The registration period is over. Those guns already registered are legal, all others from now forever into the future are not. The staple guns, nonexistent guns, multiply registered guns already registered are all that exist within the system to mess it up.
10 posted on 12/06/2002 10:13:22 AM PST by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list

11 posted on 12/06/2002 10:14:23 AM PST by Joe Brower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto

12 posted on 12/06/2002 10:21:06 AM PST by RJayneJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto

The subversive traitors at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just dismissed a challenge to the "assault weapons' ban for lack of standing because "the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms."

IMPEACHING FEDERAL JUDGES:A COVENANTAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE TO JUDICIAL TYRANNY

13 posted on 12/06/2002 10:34:14 AM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Balancing the Ninth

Earlier this month the Supreme Court issued its ruling in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, the closely-watched "medical marijuana" case. By a vote of eight to zero (Justice Breyer recused himself because his brother was the district court judge in the case below), the Court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and reached the unsurprising conclusion that properly authorized federal law prevails over state law. It was a holding as old as the Constitution itself, which provides in Article VI that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land." One might challenge the application of federal drug laws to wholly intrastate manufacture and distribution as outside the scope of Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause, but that claim was not part of the case. Instead, the Ninth Circuit had held that there was an implied "medical necessity" exemption to the federal drug laws. The Supreme Court unanimously held otherwise.

It was the fifth time the Ninth Circuit had been reversed in a month. Seven of eight cases already decided by the high Court this year from the Ninth Circuit have been reversed, and six of those seven were by unanimous or nearly unanimous rulings. A few years ago, the Supreme Court even took the extraordinary step of issuing a special order barring the Ninth Circuit from issuing any further last-minute rulings in a death penalty case. The year I was fortunate enough to serve as a law clerk at the Supreme Court, 28 of 29 cases from the Ninth Circuit resulted in reversals. It is almost as if one could write a word processing macro — call it the [Alt-9] macro — which would automatically insert at the end of any opinion involving a case from the Ninth Circuit the following conclusion: "The opinion of the Ninth Circuit is reversed; the decision of the Court is unanimous."

14 posted on 12/06/2002 10:40:58 AM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
the Court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and reached the unsurprising conclusion that properly authorized federal law prevails over state law

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

15 posted on 12/06/2002 10:52:31 AM PST by m1911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
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?
16 posted on 12/06/2002 12:59:08 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
The subversive traitors at the Ninth Circuit Circus Court of Appeals
17 posted on 12/06/2002 1:00:31 PM PST by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Remedy; HangFire; lowbridge; Travis McGee; Mercuria; feinswinesuksass; nunya bidness; harpseal; ...
It was the fifth time the Ninth Circuit had been reversed in a month. Seven of eight cases already decided by the high Court this year from the Ninth Circuit have been reversed, and six of those seven were by unanimous or nearly unanimous rulings. A few years ago, the Supreme Court even took the extraordinary step of issuing a special order barring the Ninth Circuit from issuing any further last-minute rulings in a death penalty case. The year I was fortunate enough to serve as a law clerk at the Supreme Court, 28 of 29 cases from the Ninth Circuit resulted in reversals. It is almost as if one could write a word processing macro — call it the [Alt-9] macro — which would automatically insert at the end of any opinion involving a case from the Ninth Circuit the following conclusion: "The opinion of the Ninth Circuit is reversed; the decision of the Court is unanimous."
 
Wow. Now that's a seriously crappy record. I'd almost be embarrassed for them if they didn't so obviously deserve it. )Besides, I reeeeeeally love the precedent.)

18 posted on 12/06/2002 2:03:03 PM PST by AnnaZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Courts/Judges are made up/from lawyers....We all know what lawyers are made of...........LOL........
19 posted on 12/06/2002 2:11:51 PM PST by litehaus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
If I had to guess I would say that if they agree to hear this case they will probably try to take the middle road, even though there should not be a middle road when it comes to basic Bill of Rights stuff. They will probably find that the 2nd is indeed about an individual right, but that as the 5th Circuit ruled, it is a right that is subject to certain "narrowly tailored restrictions". That will simply put us right back in the same old place where we are today: enemies of freedom trying to expand this definition and RKBA advocates vociferously playing defense.

My own interpretation is that the 2nd speaks of an unrestricted right to own and carry any type of small arm, and that ALL gun laws, both state and federal are unconstitutional where they abridge the RKBA for law-abiding citizens. That means Vermont CCW; that means no waiting period; that means full-auto, short-barreled, and/or suppressed small arms. That means .50 cal portable rifles. And no damn registration, licensing, and/or fees.

20 posted on 12/06/2002 2:31:45 PM PST by 45Auto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 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