Ruling no surprise to gun buffs Appeals court decides individuals don't have right to bear arms

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 7 December 2002 | Katherine Seligman

[45Auto]

To Clifton Rakic, who works at the Bullseye Precision Indoor Shooting Range in San Rafael, Thursday's appellate court ruling that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual's right to bear arms was just more of the same.

"As far as we're concerned, California has taken this position for a long time," he said Friday, in between helping customers.

[Fish out of Water]

bang

[litehaus]

Yeh sure...and the individual STATES can restrict our speech I guess, search our homes at will I guess etc etc...It's just logical HUH? ;>)FMCDH............

[dirtboy]

"Right now," she said, "California -- a state of 35 million people -- is far ahead the rest of the nation in moving toward prudent, sane gun laws which help ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of those who would wantonly kill others."

BWAHAHA! So no criminals have guns in your state, DiFi?

[Lorenb420]

Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she thought the ruling was "clear confirmation that the government has the ability to place common-sense regulations on firearms."

Yeah that is exactly what I thought after reading "Congress shall make no law" </sarcasm>

What does one have to do to quality as a traitor or enemy of the state these days?

[Kerberos]

"sane gun laws which help ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of those who would wantonly kill others." "

Hey idiot, those who wantonly kill others don't care what your laws say.

[Blood of Tyrants]

States don't have rights. They have only powers that are granted to them by the people.

[coloradan]

"Right now," she said, "California -- a state of 35 million people -- is far ahead the rest of the nation in moving toward prudent, sane gun laws which help ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of those who would wantonly kill others."

Blatant lie - the laws don't proscribe guns from certain people, they proscribe certain types of guns from everyone.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Yep. That's why there have been 650 murders in LA County this year. See? Gun control is a complete success there.

[headsonpikes]

Gotta love the Headline at least...

There's plenty of truth in it.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I'm not going to lose much sleep over the 9th Circuit's leftwing kook thinking. It will be overturned.

[Deguello]

The appeals court should wonder why it is called the "Bill of Rights". Only Article X mentions state rights.

[45Auto]

"People (in California) need to realize that there isno legal line standing between them and a complete ban on the possession of arms," Michel said. "The only thing is their own civic activism. The state could ban guns entirely if it wanted to."

[Deguello]

Correct "state rights" to State Powers. Brain got too far ahead.

[Lorenb420]

Yeah that is exactly what I thought after reading "Congress shall make no law" </sarcasm>

D'oh. Meant to say "the right of the people shall not be infringed" instead of "Congress shall make no law" :)

[prophetic]

ah well, the left coast does its usual re-invention of the laws as it suits them (which they do every 5 minutes or so).

Having congress & company spend so much time, effort & resources to try and make good laws is totally meaningless because of leftist radical activist judges. They & their cronies have the power & will to overturn them on an whim and makes the whole effort moot.

Meanwhile their underlings constandly flood the courts with lawsuits to bring into existence by litigation what could not arrive by the ballots.

[Redbob]

"Chuck Michel, a lawyer for the NRA and spokesman for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said the decision was "foreseeable as it was avoidable. " He said he didn't support the challenge to the ban based on the Second Amendment grounds because the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had already made its position clear in past rulings."

My questions are, Is this NRA guy stupid, silly, or was he just quoted out of context?
KNOWING that the 9th Circuit is going to rule against you doesn't change the fact that, in order to get to the Supreme Court, cases originating in California must go through the 9th Circuit appeals step.

Or was Chuckie really saying the NRA is AFRAID of a Supreme Court ruling?
Myself, I want them to rule even if they rule against the Second Amendment - so I'll know for sure what needs to be done next.

[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

Will the US Senate begin impeachment proceedings against Herr Reinhart, or is Trent Lott just enjoying the time dreaming of segragation days?

[Frohickey]

Part of me says that the NRA-ILA is afraid of any Second Amendment case because it could finally be settled that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. If that happens, then the $millions that the NRA-ILA receives would evaporate.

Me, I say, bring it on! Give me a definitive answer to whether the Second Amendment is an individual right or not.