Skip to comments.
9th Circuit rejects challenge to California gun show ban
mercury news ^
| February 18, 2003
Posted on 02/18/2003 7:07:02 PM PST by Indy Pendance
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:30:24 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel reluctantly upheld a local California ordinance banning weapons bazaars on government property Tuesday, saying it was bound by precedent.
In dismissing a challenge to an Alameda County ordinance, the three-judge panel ruled that gun enthusiasts had neither a First Amendment nor a Second Amendment right to possess weapons for sale on county property.
(Excerpt) Read more at bayarea.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS:
To: Indy Pendance
Welcome to the Soviet Socialist Republic of Kalifornia.
To: Indy Pendance
Several other courts in other states (Texas comes to mind) have ruled that it violates 1st amendment rights as well.
3
posted on
02/18/2003 7:10:47 PM PST
by
marktwain
To: marktwain
That's what I got out of the article. The 9th had no choice. Amazing considering their history.
To: Indy Pendance
Considering that the 9th is overturned more than it's upheld, this is probably a good sign.
To: Commander8
Question? If the en banc 9th upholds the 9th panel's decision that the 2nd is NOT an individual right, does that trump the 5th's decision that is it IS an individual right. If not then what; if so then what?
To: Indy Pendance
I've always enjoyed the (non-logical) "precedent" argument. I've never had an attorney who was able to logically explain the importance of "precedent". What if the "precedent" is incorrect or wrong?
7
posted on
02/18/2003 7:56:28 PM PST
by
The Toad
To: Indy Pendance
"weapons bazaars"
Gun haters dream up nasty sounding names for what they want to ban, Saturday night special, sniper rifles, assault rifles and high capacity magazines--weapons bazaars joins the list.
8
posted on
02/18/2003 8:03:05 PM PST
by
RicocheT
To: RicocheT
Wait until they start calling them weapons of mass destruction.....
To: Commander8
Let's see them try to confiscate my guns! I would pay good money to see that day come in my neighborhood. The only good thing about the ruling is that it will force a full panel to look at the case.
To: John Jorsett
It's a good sign if it puts at least two Ninth Circuit judges on record as supporting the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
To: Iconoclast2
It's a good sign if it puts at least two Ninth Circuit judges on record as supporting the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment. I smell a SCOTUS reversal.
To: Indy Pendance
The 9th Circus Court of Appeals is always good for a chuckle!
13
posted on
02/18/2003 8:46:36 PM PST
by
twntaipan
(Defend American Liberty: Defeat a demoncRAT!)
To: Atchafalaya
Question? If the en banc 9th upholds the 9th panel's decision that the 2nd is NOT an individual right, does that trump the 5th's decision that is it IS an individual right? No, each decision is binding within its own circuit, but next time the issue comes up, SCOTUS is likely to take up the case to resolve the discrepancy.
To: NovemberCharlie
I'm rather amazed that the AP quoted Chuck Michel, who wasn't even a named party to the case but merely drafted amicus briefs, and didn't quote Don Kilmer, the guy who actually argued and briefed the case.
And the AP's suggestion that this panel considers the Hickman ruling "perhaps" flawed is a little strange, considering these quotes:
I conclude that an individual rights view of the Second Amendment is most consistent with the Second Amendments language, structure, and purposes, as well as colonial experience and pre-adoption history. Limiting the Second Amendments protection to collective rights of militias affronts the most basic protections of the Second Amendment.
...and so on. I don't think that leaves much room for doubt as to whether they consider Hickman flawed.
Don Kilmer is the president of California Citizens for Self Defense, working to put the right to keep and bear arms into the California Constitution.
15
posted on
02/18/2003 9:55:30 PM PST
by
mvpel
(Michael Pelletier)
To: Indy Pendance
"Gould, appointed by President Clinton, added that under the circuit's own precedent,
``a general confiscation of guns could become the order of the day.''
That's a very interesting statement by one of the guys from the infamous 9th Circuit;I would like to think that there is hope for the correct view to prevail, even at the 9th Circus. But I still don't trust those black-robed vultures. A general confiscation order would be met by considerable resistance, contrary to the opinions of some Freepers. It would either be the end of the Republic, or the end of the damn gun-grabbers, both in and out of office.
16
posted on
02/19/2003 11:00:56 AM PST
by
45Auto
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