I have heard many people state that the Fith Circuit's holding of the Second being a guarantee of an individual's right as a dicta but it is not if you actually read the decision then one must understand that it is not a dicta which does not bind all lower courts in the district but an essential holding of the court. The references to the Fifth circuits ruling as a dicta were from the dissent of the liberal on the three judge panel.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

Dicta or not, it is equally valid if this case comes before the USSC. I happen to agree that it is essential to the 5th Circuit case, as without an individual RKBA, Emerson would have had no standing to challenge the law. This is why the 5th made such an effort to analyze the 2nd and the history behind it.

Regarding the 9th's opinion, I haven't read it and probably won't - I rather enjoy keeping my food down, thank you very much. However, I understand that this very idea underlies the opinion - there was no standing to challenge the Kali law because the defendants had no individual RKBA. This, by itself, should guarantee Cert, but we all know that the Supremes will do all that they can to avoid this (or any other) RKBA case.

Oh, and regarding the 9th's silly assertion that the 2nd doesn't protect an individual right to keep and bear arms (ANY arms):

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

Samuel Adams

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American."

Tench Coxe 2/20/1788

Any other similar quotes are welcome.

Typical gun-grabbing bull shite. At least SCOTUS will probably decide on a 2A case within the next 10 years. Then we'll know where we stand.

I did manage to make it through the Ninth Circuit opinion in this case and on the issue of either court's opinion being dicta it is clear that both courts used the Second as the basis for their opinion on standing to challenge the law. Thus either they are both non binding dicta or they are in conflict. Now even though my stomach is no longer what it once was, some surgical alterations done by Navy surgeons in 1968 have had a lasting effect I found that a determination to pour through it and careful use of stomach medication plus not eating beforehand protected my keyboard from massive regurgitation.

By all rights the US Supreme Court should take this case on appeal and grant cert here. I do not know if they will do so.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

One of the "anti-gun nuts"' favorite mantras is to say, or imply, that the individual rights view of the Second Amendment is a modern invention, promulgated only in recent decades by those whackos at the NRA. They like to try to undermine any examination of the historic record by claiming that no one in the 18th century ever said anything that couldn't be interpreted as a "collective rights" viewpoint.

Unfortunately for them, they're dead wrong.

Here are a few of the clearest statements of the individual right to keep and bear arms from the time of the Constitution:

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
--Tench Coxe (1755-1824), writing as "A Pennsylvanian," in "Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution," in the _Philadelphia Federal Gazette,_ June 18, 1789, p.2 col.1 [Coxe is referring to the proposed amendment which became the Second Amendment.]

What part of "their private arms" is unclear to the gun grabbers?

Not only does this clearly spell out the individual rights position, proving that it was an issue even back then, but the context of this quote strongly implies that it was the position also held by James Madison, who *wrote* the Second Amendment.

Tench Coxe was a British Loyalist during the early parts of the American Revolution. This is not a damning observation -- at that time many colonists felt it was more proper to support the established government, whatever its flaws, than to support a band of insurrectionists. But Coxe came around and eventually became one of the Revolution's most ardent supporters. Coxe was one of the three delegates from Pennsylvania sent to the Constitutional Convention (1788). This was an *extremely* important and respected role, and it makes Coxe one of the Founders of our American government. He eventually held significant positions in the new American government, including appointments by James Madison and George Washington.

A few points of note about the above Coxe quote:

1. It was part of an overview not just of the Second Amendment, but of the entire proposed Bill of Rights. It wasn't an off-the-cuff comment, it was a carefully composed analysis.

2. Coxe's summaries were published far and wide. For example, the above quote was also published on the front page of the special July 4, 1789 issue of the Boston Massachusetts Centinel, among others. They were, in fact, the most widely read critiques of the proposed Bill of Rights at the time.

3. When "the People" voted on ratifying the Second Amendment, THIS IS WHAT THEY UNDERSTOOD THEY WERE AGREEING TO.

4. There were no counterarguments at the time. Stephen P. Halbrook writes, in "THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IN THE FIRST STATE BILLS OF RIGHTS: PENNSYLVANIA, NORTH CAROLINA, VERMONT, AND MASSACHUSETTS", "No one disputed this explanation or provided any alternative interpretation of the proposed amendment."

5. Neither did James Madison. Madison wrote to Coxe and commended him for his summaries, without taking any issue with Coxe's characterization of the Bill of Rights. And if anyone should know what the Second Amendment meant, it would be James Madison.

6. The quote has been circulated both with and without the "private" arms qualifier. Ken Barnes, a Second Amendment researcher, took the time to go back to original sources to verify which version was correct. The "private" qualifier *IS* in the original.

This quote alone should be a historical slam-dunk against the "collective rights" twaddle. (And what in the hell is a "collective right"? What *else* do the gun-grabbers contend is a "collective right", not held by individuals?)

Here's a lengthier quote:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. [...] Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
--Alexander Hamilton, writing as "Publius," in the_Daily Advertiser,_ January 9, 1788

Points of note:

1. This is the clearest statement of the meaning of the term "well regulated militia". Hamilton says that what makes an armed populace a "well regulated militia" is the "degree of perfection" of their military preparedness.

2. ...and not, as the gun-grabbers would have you believe, how "government regulated" they are. In fact, Hamilton specifically points out that being too heavily regulated would be impractical. He just wants the population at large to be armed and ready.

3. The last sentence would be enough to give Sarah Brady a stroke: Hamilton wants the general public to be periodically inspected to ensure that they remain "properly armed and equipped". This is the federal government *mandating* the citizens being armed. My, how times have changed...

Coxe again:

"The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be _tremendous and irresistable_. Who are the militia? _[A]re they not ourselves[?]_ Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms _each man against his own bosom[?]_ Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are _the birth-right of an American_... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the _federal or state governments,_ but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, _in the hands of the people._"
--Tench Coxe (1755-1824), writing as "A Pennsylvanian," in _Pennsylvania Gazette,_ February 20, 1788 [see_A Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution_(Kamiski and Saladino, eds., 1981) p.1778-1780]

Note especially the point about arms being in the hands of the people, and *NOT* in the hands of the federal or *state* governments.

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
--Samuel Adams (1722-1803), in Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, pp.86-87, also in Philadelphia_Independent Gazetteer,_ August 20, 1789 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

Oh, look: Their *own* arms.

How about the Supreme Court?

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to general government."
--U.S. Supreme Court Justice Woods, writing in _Presser v. Illinois,_ U.S. Reports v.116 p.252, Supreme Court Reports v.6 p.580, Lawyer's Edition v.29 p.615 (1886)

"[S] 1889. The next amendment is: 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' [S] 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
--U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845), "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution" pp.746-747 (Boston, 1833)

Justice Story is rightly considered one of the foremost authorities on the Constitution.

"Last Monday a string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respect personal liberty..." --Senator William Grayson (1740-1790) of Virginia in a letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789 [in Patrick Henry's_Papers_ vol.3, p.391 (1951)]

Hmm, "personal liberty"...

"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers."
--George Mason (1725-1792), in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution, June 16, 1788, in_Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution,_ Jonathan Elliot, ed., v.3 p.425 (Philadelphia, 1836)

"...whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion."
--U.S. Senator Richard Henry Lee (1732-1794) of Virginia, _A number of Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican; leading to a fair examination of the System of Government proposed by the late Convention; to several essential and necessary alterations in it. and calculated to Illustrate and Support the Principles and Positions Laid down in the preceding Letters,_ (New York, January 25, 1788), p.169 [Note: Richard Henry Lee, who was a Senator in the First Congress, is_not_to be confused with Revolutionary War hero Henry "Light- Horse Harry" Lee, the father of Confederate general Robert E. Lee. Richard Henry Lee was "Light-Horse" Henry's_uncle_ (_and_uncle-in- law!) thanks to "Light-Horse" Henry marrying his second cousin, Matilda Lee.]

"Another of these [democratizing] operations is making every citizen a soldier, and every soldier a citizen; not only_permitting_every man to arm, but_obliging_him to arm."
--Joel Barlow (1754-1812), _Advice to the Privileged Orders in the several States of Europe, resulting from the necessity and propriety of a general revolution in the principles of government,_ p.24 and 61-69 (London, 1792-1793) [This work was written in the early days of the French Revolution.]

Oh, yeah, belief in individual citizens being armed for the public good is a modern "gun nut" invention, the early Americans never thought of seeing it that way, yup yup...

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appears to be bent on adopting as many intellectually dishonest positions as is possible. In both this case and in the case respecting the Pledge of Allegiance, the Court insists on applying its ideological convictions to the Constitution, and on reading only what it wants to read.

Not only is this intellectually dishonest, it is also dishonourable and distinctly un-American. In the United States, we believe in the rule of law -- a concept rendered meaningless by Leftist insistence on subjective and illogical interpretations of the law.

The Second Article of Amendment specifically states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

First and foremost, unlike the First Article of Amendment, the Second makes no specification as to who is prohibited from doing such a thing. Whereas the First applies strictly to the Congress, the Second makes a peremptory declaration that the right "shall not be infringed."

In essence, the Second expressly forbids any form of ingringement upon the right to bear and keep arms by any party, either the Federal or a State Government. Linguistically, there is simply no way for any party to infringe the right without being in direct violation of the terms of the Constitution, regardless of how well-intentioned the infringment.

Secondly, the Court's interpretation that the Second is simply an authorisation for the States to raise and equip militia is an entirely fabricated and unsubstantiated fantasy. Were that the case, the Second would read "the right of the States to equip and outfit well-regulated Militia shall not be infringed."

Notably, however, it does not say that. The Second refers not to the rights of the States, but to the rights of the people. It is clearly not a collective right of the State -- because the States are referred to as separate entities, and never as "the people."

In any event, the Court's invalid interpretation is revealed for what it is by the Ninth and Tenth Article of Amendment: Legalistic fabrication.

The Ninth specifically states that "[t]he enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The Tenth further states that "[t]he 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."

In the first place, the form of the Tenth makes quite clear that, in the Constitution, "the people" is not synonymous with "the States," else the two terms would not be mentioned separately as distinct entities.

In the second place, even if the Second only protected the States' rights to equip militia, the right to keep and bear arms would still be protected by the Ninth, as a non-enumerated right.

And in the third place, the Tenth completely invalidates the Court's position:

Section 8 of Article enumerates the powers of the Congress; it empowers the Congress "[t]o provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

Clearly, then, the power to arm the militia is delegated to the Congress by the terms of the Constitution itself, and not to the States. Given that the power to do so is expressly delegated to the Congress, why in the Gates of Hell would the same power be vaguely reserved to the States?

Furthermore, section 10 of the same Article expressly states that "[n]o State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace."

This makes even more clear that the position the Court has read into the Second is completely nonsensical: The Second cannot possibly be protecting the States' right to equip and outfit militia, because the Constitution has already dealt with that matter! It delegated the power to do so to the Congress, and then went on to prohibit the States from keeping troops in time of peace without the Congress's consent.

The Second cannot uphold the States' power to equip and outfit militia, because the States explicitly do not have that power: It was expressly delegated to the Congress, and prohibited to the States without consent of the Congress.

The Tenth states that the powers not delegated to the Federal Government and not prohibited to the State Governments belong to the States or to the people. However, the power to equip and outfit militia is quite clearly delegated to the Federal Government and equally clearly prohibited to the State Governments; ergo, per the Tenth, that power does not belong to the States or to the people.

Needless to say, if a power explicitly does not belong to the States, that power cannot be protected. One can not protect what one does not have.

Clearly, then, the Court's interpretation of the Second is indicative of gross intellectual dishonesty and demonstrable constitutional ignorance.

Clearly I agree with your well stated discussion of the meaning of the Second Ammendment. Now the question boils dow2n to what do we as the peiople guaranteed a right do about a court system that has chosen to ignore that right. Should the Supremem court of the United States of America choose to grant cert in this case or some other definitive Second Ammendment case then clearly waiting for them to rule is the morally sound position due to the fact that all peaceful means of redress of grievences must be tried.

However, now is the time to plan your course of action should this usurpation of the rights of citizens be allowed to stand.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

ctrl

<-- Chronological -->

Find

<-- Thread -->

[CTRL] Showdown looming on right to own guns / Assault weapons ban upheld, putting court at odds with Ashcroft

From: Euphorian
Subject: [CTRL] Showdown looming on right to own guns / Assault weapons ban upheld, putting court at odds with Ashcroft
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 14:29:58 -0800

-Caveat Lector-

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/12/06/MN211218.DTL

       www.sfgate.com       Return to regular view

Showdown looming on right to own guns
Assault weapons ban upheld, putting court at odds with Ashcroft
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, December 6, 2002
©2002 San Francisco Chronicle.

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/12/06/MN211218.DTL

A federal appeals court upheld California's ban on military-style assault weapons 
Thursday,
ruling that individuals have no constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The Constitution's Second Amendment preserves only the right of states to organize and
maintain militias, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in a 
3-0
decision.

The ruling put the court at odds with the Bush administration and a decision last year 
by a
federal appeals court in New Orleans.

The amendment "was adopted to ensure that effective state militias would be maintained,
thus preserving the people's right to bear arms," wrote Judge Stephen Reinhardt. "The
amendment was not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with respect to 
private
gun ownership or possession."

STAGE SET FOR HIGH COURT ACTION

The ruling paves the way for the controversial issue to be addressed by the nation's 
highest
court, which has not touched the topic since 1939.

"When you have something like the Ninth Circuit, the largest judicial federal circuit 
in the
country, coming out with a ruling like this, it means we're within a couple years of 
it coming
before the Supreme Court," said Peter Keane, dean of the Golden Gate University Law
School. "Because it's a hot issue, the Supreme Court hasn't wanted to deal with it."

The state Legislature passed the nation's most sweeping assault weapons ban in 1989,
outlawing 75 high-powered weapons that have rapid-fire capabilities. The ban was
expanded in 1999 to include copycat weapons with similar features.

The original version was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2000, when it was
challenged by a group of gun rights activists who said the ban violated the Second
Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause and several other constitutional provisions.

Reinhardt said he concluded that the Second Amendment cannot be used to strike down the
ban after a lengthy analysis of the amendment's history and text. The amendment states:
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right 
of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

His interpretation of the amendment's intent matched that of the federal government's
before Attorney General John Ashcroft wrote a letter to the National Rifle Association 
in
May. In the letter, Ashcroft declared that the Second Amendment protected the 
individual
right to bear arms. The Justice Department took that position formally in a U.S. 
Supreme
Court filing a year later, saying the right was subject to "reasonable restrictions" 
on certain
types of weapons and categories of owners.

Ashcroft's views were endorsed by a federal appeals court in New Orleans in October 
2001.
Despite concluding that the Constitution protected an individual's right to bear arms, 
the
court upheld a federal law banning gun possession by people under restraining orders 
for
domestic violence.

Because the issue has become so debated, Reinhardt chose to address it with a
comprehensive opinion instead of relying on a similar decision rendered by the court 
six
years ago.

Matthew Nosanchuk, senior litigation counsel for the Violence Policy Center in 
Washington,
told the Los Angeles Times that the 86-page ruling was one of the most comprehensive
ever written on the Second Amendment.

"This is a very important contribution that should drive a stake through the heart of 
the
individual rights position," Nosanchuk said.

RULING REJECTS 9 CHALLENGES

In Thursday's decision, Reinhardt expressly disagreed with the Second Amendment
interpretations by Ashcroft and the New Orleans court. He also noted that the San 
Francisco
court, which oversees federal courts in nine Western states, had ruled in 1996 that the
Constitution does not protect individual gun ownership.

The ruling rejected challenges to the law by nine gun owners. The court then went a 
step
further and broadened the law by striking down an exemption that allowed retired police
officers to own assault weapons, ruling that it served no public purpose.

The NRA expressed disappointment with the ruling.

"For 131 years, we've been standing steadfastly to protect the freedoms of all law- 
abiding
Americans and stand steadfastly that the Second Amendment is an individual right and 
will
continue to do so," spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said.

Chronicle news services contributed to this report. / E-mail Bob Egelko at
begelko@sfchronicle.com.

©2002 San Francisco Chronicle.  Page A - 1

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
CTRL@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM</A>

http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
 <A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] LISTSERV@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] LISTSERV@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

Om

[CTRL] Showdown looming on right to own guns / Assault weapons ban upheld, putting court at odds with Ashcroft, Euphorian

<-- Chronological -->

<-- Thread -->

Metropolitan News-Enterprise

Friday, December 6, 2002

Page 1

Ninth Circuit Upholds State Assault Weapons Ban

By ROBERT GREENE, Staff Writer

The Second Amendment never was meant to guarantee an individual’s right to own a gun, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said yesterday in a ruling upholding California’s tight restrictions on assault weapons.

The 1989 Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act, enacted after the schoolyard killing of five Stockton children by gunman Patrick Purdy, doesn’t violate the Bill of Rights because the Second Amendment was meant only to affirm the power of official state militias to organize and to arm their troopers, Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the three-judge panel.

The law bars anyone from making certain semi-automatic weapons in California or importing them into the state. Anyone who already owned guns that were put on the list of banned weapons by the state attorney general must register them, make them inoperable, take them out of the state or give them up.

Exceptions for law enforcement officers, even when they are off duty, are valid under the Equal Protection Clause because public protection forms a rational basis for treating officers differently, Reinhardt said.

But the court rejected a provision that also provides an exception for retired law enforcement officers. Just because Congress incorporated the same exception into a 1994 federal law modeled on the California statute, the judge said, doesn’t mean there was a rational basis for the exemption in California.

“An unconstitutional statute adopted by a dozen jurisdictions is no less unconstitutional by virtue of its popularity,” Reinhardt said.

The court also rejected assertions that the special training officers had before they retired, or the fact that officers may have purchased their duty weapons on retirement, provided a rational basis for the exception.

The Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The opinion was not the first in which the Ninth Circuit has cited the “well-regulated militia” clause to support its position that the Second Amendment does not apply to personal gun ownership. That position—that the prefatory clause modifies the following clause, usually known as the “collective rights model”—is widely accepted by gun control advocates, and Reinhardt said it was the accepted interpretation in the nation for most of its history.

The competing “traditional individual rights model” is of more recent vintage, he said.

But the Fifth Circuit has ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees personal gun ownership rights, and Attorney General John Ashcroft has adopted that position.

Reinhardt’s opinion was unusual in that most of its 70 pages, a length generally reserved for law review articles, was devoted to an analysis of the two approaches to interpreting the clause.

Second Amendment scholar David Kopel, research director of the Colorado-based Independence Institution and a staunch defender of the individualist rights approach, said the opinion could not be taken seriously because Reinhardt’s analysis relied in part on a law review article by someone Kopel called a proven fraud.

“When footnote 1 is a book that has been exposed as a hoax, there is no reason to believe anything else in it,” Kopel said.

Reinhardt cited “Gun Control: A Historical Overview” by Michael A. Bellesiles, 28 Crime & Just. 137. Bellesiles is the author of “Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture,” a 2000 book that asserts among other things that guns were rare in early America. Bellesiles resigned from the faculty of Emory University, effective the end of this year, after assertions that he fabricated research data led to a special academic inquiry.

The committee concluded that Bellesiles failed to abide by proper research standards.

Although the circuits are split on the meaning of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has not taken review of cases that deal with the issue directly. Kopel said the justices were not likely to take this case either, but would wait for one that dealt with a federal gun control law—or would continue to pass on the issue.

“The Supreme Court has finite political capital and spends it as it wants to,” Kopel said.

In 1939, the high court upheld a federal law prohibiting the interstate transport of sawed-off shotguns, finding the weapon unsuitable for use in the militia and not constitutionally protected. The court has since rarely delved into Second Amendment issues.

The California assault weapons ban restricts guns that reload automatically after the trigger is pulled and use large ammunition magazines to allow continuous shooting without reloading.

In 1999, the Legislature redrafted the law to ban copycat weapons with similar features. The law permits the state attorney general to add guns to the list of banned weapons.

“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 in our state,” Attorney General Bill Lockyer said in a statement.

The National Rifle Association said it was disappointed with the ruling.

“From an organizational standpoint, for 131 years we’ve been standing steadfastly to protect the freedoms of all law abiding Americans and stand steadfastly that the Second Amendment is an individual right and will continue to do so,” NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said.

The case is Silveira v. Lockyer, 01-15098.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights

ken

Effective December 15, 1791
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

End the deception.

Know Your Rights
http://www.harbornet.com/rights/lindat.html

Remember it was Reinhardt who was slapped down by the USSC in the U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez [494 US 259, (1990)]. The important thing from that opinion (which Reinhardt chose to ignore) is the following:

"the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the People of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1, ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble"); Art. I, § 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community"

Obviously he didn't want any part of this and chose to ignore the ruling in this opinion.

It is the moral and ethical responsibility of all citizens and all human beings to seek pacific settlement of disputes whenever such is both possible and feasible. In a Union such as ours -- and God keep it strong --, founded as it is upon the principle of rule of law, it is also one's civic responsibility, in addition to being a moral and ethical imperative.

In any event, the State of Ohio -- wherein I dwell -- provides for the eventuality of an unresponsive Government in its Constitution (speficially, Article I, section 2):

"All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform, or abolish the same, whenever they may deem it necessary [...]"

Reinhardt is such an arrogant son-of-a-bitch, he just HAD to make himself out to look so f'ing smart to all his lefty cronies on the west coast, including that dipsh*t California AG, Bill Lockyer, and those other dishonest goons sitting on the Cal SC. He can't help himself. These people think they have a lock on the government in California and that they can do anything they want legislatively because the entire court system is in on the conspiracy to deny rights, "wink, wink, nod, nod."

Reinhardt's arrogance may just have pushed him too far on this one. Gone are the days when the bastards could just push us aside with a bang of the judicial gavel.

There are some who say that the US SC will not take this case; if so, the problem is only going to grow. Inaction by the SC would be unconscionable. RKBA advocates are willing to put up a lot of money to get this thing appealed, and I think the juggernaut cannot be stopped. There also is no middle ground; either its an individual right, or the entire Constitution is null and void. If the latter, than every damn law passed in the last 200 years is also null and void. The US SC cannot afford to allow this kind of thinking to fester. The fate of the Republic hangs in the balance.

Scalia, Thomas and probably Rehnquist would like to rule on this; all it takes is for 4 justices to agree to hear a case, so one more honest man is required.

This issue is now "ripe" as the lawyers say for an SC review. It is perhaps "over-ripe" since the last decision was Miller, that misconstrued piece of work. Of course, anyone with a modicum of common sense and a reasonable familiarity with the English language could read and understand Miller. I assume Reinhardt has both qualities, and therefore, I think he simply made up a nice bunch of lies for his commie friends. He should be impeached. I doubt if there are enough Congressmen with the balls to do the right thing, however. A rebuke (yet another one) by the Supreme Court would be nice.

I wonder if the plaintiffs will ask for an en banc hearing? That would be one way for the 9th Circuit to sort of "cover its collective a**" by affirming the Cal AW ban and yet removing Reinhardt's flawed (perhaps criminally inspired) analysis.

I would rather see this go to the Supremes and take our chances that they will render another famous 5/4 split n favor of the individual RKBA.

Another question that arises is IF the US SC found for the individual RKBA,then what impact if any, might that have on the Cal AW ban? The ban is totally unconstitutional, yet the damn courts seem hell-bent to keep it in force.