Skip to comments.
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
Posted on 12/09/2002 10:53:07 AM PST by 45Auto
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:41:30 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; US: California
KEYWORDS: banglist; rkba
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
1
posted on
12/09/2002 10:53:07 AM PST
by
45Auto
To: *bang_list
bang
To: 45Auto
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............
3
posted on
12/09/2002 10:56:09 AM PST
by
litehaus
To: 45Auto
"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?
4
posted on
12/09/2002 10:59:20 AM PST
by
dirtboy
To: 45Auto
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?
5
posted on
12/09/2002 11:01:47 AM PST
by
Lorenb420
To: 45Auto
"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.
6
posted on
12/09/2002 11:02:33 AM PST
by
Kerberos
To: 45Auto
States don't have rights. They have only powers that are granted to them by the people.
To: 45Auto
"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.
8
posted on
12/09/2002 11:04:57 AM PST
by
coloradan
To: dirtboy
Yep. That's why there have been 650 murders in LA County this year. See? Gun control is a complete success there.
To: 45Auto
Gotta love the Headline at least...
There's plenty of truth in it.
To: Lorenb420
I'm not going to lose much sleep over the 9th Circuit's leftwing kook thinking. It will be overturned.
To: 45Auto
The appeals court should wonder why it is called the "Bill of Rights". Only Article X mentions state rights.
12
posted on
12/09/2002 11:08:00 AM PST
by
Deguello
To: 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."
13
posted on
12/09/2002 11:08:25 AM PST
by
45Auto
Comment #14 Removed by Moderator
To: Deguello
Correct "state rights" to State Powers. Brain got too far ahead.
15
posted on
12/09/2002 11:11:52 AM PST
by
Deguello
To: 45Auto
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" :)
To: 45Auto
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.
To: 45Auto
"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.
18
posted on
12/09/2002 11:43:28 AM PST
by
Redbob
To: 45Auto
Will the US Senate begin impeachment proceedings against Herr Reinhart, or is Trent Lott just enjoying the time dreaming of segragation days?
To: Redbob
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.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson