California's Assault Weapons Ban does Indeed Violate the Constitution

http://www.sierratimes.com ^ | Tuesday December 31, 2002 | By Robert Greenslade

[Joe Brower]

[mvpel]

The courts have opened the door for the legislature of California to send any manner of gun ban they wish to our proudly anti-gun governor. See http://www.CApropRKBA.org/ for our effort to avert this fate.

[YOMO]

the Court rejected this assertion "[b]ecause the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms." Instead, the Court ruled: "the Second Amendment affords only a collective right to own or possess guns or other firearms." .............

Does that mean all you have to do is buy the weapons in the name of more than one user or Militia? Collective to me means more than one. Let the Control Freaks figure out what happens when there is 20 or better names on a purchase application.

[unixfox]

What do these amendments have in common?

1st ...The right of the people peaceably to assemble...

2nd ...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

3rd ...The right of the people to be secure in their persons...

I see a lot of things in the constitution that say "The People" What part do they not understand?

[unixfox]

3rd should be 4th, my bad

[2timothy3.16]

bump

[archy]

Wouldn't it be ironic if it works out so that it's the Ninth Court's ruling that gets the entire snakepit of gun control laws overturned by the supremes?

Or, alternatively, if they rule against the American people, who then find the entire constitutional contract between government and the governed to be null and void, with no more continuation of the legitimate authority for either a federal court system, or and federal government at all.

If the Second Amendment goes, so does Article II of the Constitution...and Article III.

-archy-/-

[IronJack]

Good to see ya back, big guy.

[Reeses]

Here's a profile of American patriot Gary Gorski: www.sfgate.com

I wonder if he's a Freeper. If there's any help I can give him I will.

[A CA Guy]

I see no problems with semi-automatic weapons or a big old pump action shot guns, bows and arrows, hand guns and so on, but does not having what is called an assault weapon a real big deal?

Is it the issue of liberals not wanting anything in the public hands at all or perhaps not having things that surpass the police that want to go home at the end of the day?

Or is there an additional issue that they might try to classify "everything" as an assault weapon to get guns out of the public's hands?

I'm really asking and don't understand the whole issue and would like to hear thoughts out there from all sides to find out more information on the issue.

[ConservativeMan55]

In my opinion Liberals will never be "done" with gun control until they completely ban owning guns. Such as is the case in England.

[Sender]

"Assault weapons" are merely a term used by anti-gun forces to describe anything they want to make illegal...originally, this mainly consisted of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that commonly accepted high-capacity magazines of 20, 30 or more rounds. They anti-gunners waited for a criminal shooting which used the type of gun they wanted to ban, then struck hard in Congress with their difficult to resist emotional hype.

Gun manufacturers soon skirted the description of "assault weapons" to produce stripped-down guns that still can accept hi-cap magazines, and the antis are trying hard (and winning in CA and NJ among other places) to ban these too.

Soon, the term "assault weapon" may refer to anything that holds more than one or two low-powered rounds. The objective is to ban them all. Really.

So, in answer to your question, yes, I mind very much not being able to own an "assault weapon", and I will not comply.

[NormsRevenge]

BUMP

[jonascord]

All shotguns are "street sweepers", all firearms with optical sights are "sniper rifles" , all handguns are "Saturday Night Specials". All firearms with a bayonet lug and a detachable magazine are "Assault Rifles". All toy guns, and bee-bee guns are "Threats".

Have I left any out? Are you worthy to be trusted with so much power? The State of Cali doesn't think so...

[Pintobean]

You asked some good questions.

I believe that anti-gunners aka liberals do want our guns outlawed and confiscated, eventually. In their view, an armed society is dangerous. They see gun owners as vigilanties.

Not all semiautos are big and scary... That was essentially the basis of the Brady Act, that these firearms are big, scary and hold many rounds in which someone can "spray" bullets at crowds of people. Liberals also coined the phrase "assault weapon".

"I see no problems with semi-automatic weapons or a big old pump action shot guns, bows and arrows, hand guns and so on, but does not having what is called an assault weapon a real big deal?"

This question shows that you do not know what makes an "assault weapon"...MOST semiautos = assault weapon....25 "junk gun" = assault weapon...ANYTHING with the capacity to hold more than X amount of rounds (from .22 rifles on up) = assault weapon..Most pistols = assault weapon...Doesn't leave us much, does it?

It is not just about banning certain guns, it is the eventual goal that the citizenry will be disarmed aka DEFENSELESS, if anti-gunners have their way.

The second ammendant is a RIGHT not a privilege.

i hope this information helps you. God Bless.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

The constitution does not say"you may own this gun but not that gun".All guns fire bullits,black powder,six shooter,semi-auto and yes,machine guns.If certain people have a fear of guns that's just too bad.Life is a risk anyway and those who foolishly believe they can eliminate all risks are crazy!All persons who want gun control are either"fright freaks or unpatriotics wanting to disarm this country.

[Fee]

One must understand the mindset of an active judicialist. Even if the plaintiff can assemble the legal arguement to prove their point. If the point is contrary to the judge's ideological viewpoint, the judge can ignore the legal argument by pointing out that there is a more important social issue that can supercede the legal argument. Example - In NJ political parties have up to 51 days to change their candidates. Failure to do so means they can not change the ballot. The NJ Supreme Court heard the case and acknowledged the law, but they felt the need to provide a political choice for the people of NJ was more important than the strict legal interpretation of the rules to the election, thus the Democrats can change the candidate from Torricelli to Lautenberg if the party was willing to cover the cost of the ballot change. Imagine if I missed the 15 April tax date and I argue that rules and regs don't count because I had a superceding social reason for ignoring! Will the IRS give me a break or will they take everything I own just to make an example of me. What do you think??