Supreme Court Sidesteps Gun Rights Case

Newsday ^ | December 1, 2003 | Gina Holland

[MikeJ75]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court disappointed gun owner groups Monday, refusing to consider whether the Constitution guarantees people a personal right to own a gun.

The court has never said if the right to "keep and bear arms" applies to individuals.

Although the Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, it did not encourage the justices to resolve the issue in this case involving a challenge of California laws banning high-powered weapons.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Wankers in Black bump!

[FirstPrinciple]

Although the Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, it did not encourage the justices to resolve the issue in this case involving a challenge of California laws banning high-powered weapons.

Hmmm...what the hell is going on?

[CindyDawg]

They are too busy trying to decide if they want to take God out of the pledge or not. The way they have been interpreting lately though, it might be better that the "wise ones" don't hear this right now.

[Hacksaw]

Probably a good thing. Idiots like O'Connor and Ginsburg would probably use an international precendent to find that the 2nd is invalid for individuals.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

There is only one party and they have only one goal.

[looscnnn]

Time for a multi-million person march of gun owners to show Congress, White House and Courts that not talking about gun issues is not the same as defending gun ownership. The SAS is having a rally in Washington in the spring of '04 (don't remember the date). GOA, NRA, Grassroots, etc. members and just plain old gun owners should all get together for the biggest rally/march ever.

[Dog Gone]

I was afraid that the Supreme Court would take this case. We need to replace O'Connor or one of the evil four libs before we let the Supreme Court rule on this issue.

I'm more afraid of a bad ruling than a postponed one.

[Centurion2000]

Probably a good thing. Idiots like O'Connor and Ginsburg would probably use an international precendent to find that the 2nd is invalid for individuals.

They REALLY don't want to do that .... there is a line in the sand for millions .... they skirt within millimeters of it.

[Neil E. Wright]

Hey supremes: Read THIS, you assholes!!!!

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

REPORT
of the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
of the
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
Second Session
February 1982

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

Click here to read the report BY THE SENATE that finds an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

---

±

"The Era of Osama lasted about an hour, from the time the first plane hit the tower to the moment the General Militia of Flight 93 reported for duty."
Toward FREEDOM

[rintense]

What the hell is right! Who and the hell do these jokers in black think has the right to keep and bear arms? Only the government??? For crying out loud, whatever happened to 'WE THE PEOPLE!!!' The government is representative of the people, as such, it is the individual who has the right to keep and bear arms. Why would our founding fathers, who were leaving tyranny, write a freedom loving Constitution that implies only the government can keep and bear arms? Why is it that judges take common sense and turn it into such unnecessary debate? Their lack of reasoning proves that the courts in this country have far too much power.

[Ff--150]

The court has never said if the right to "keep and bear arms" applies to individuals.

Well "keep and bear arms" is rather confusing, vague, complicated, and esoteric.

Glad these honored men and women are paid $100,000+ each to protect us from misunderstanding this. [mega-sarcasm off]

[Dead Corpse]

Keep posting that. Thanks....

[aomagrat]

The supreme court knows that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the people the right to own firearms. However, to actually rule so would go against their political agenda, so they refuse to hear the case.

[cryptical]

*BANG*

[joesnuffy]

Although the Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, it did not encourage the justices to resolve the issue in this case involving a challenge of California laws banning high-powered weapons.

Hmmm...what the hell is going on?

RINOS.....

[OXENinFLA]

The court has never said if the right to "keep and bear arms" applies to individuals.

THE COURTS DON'T HAVE TO, THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS A NATURAL RIGHT AND SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!

[El Gato]

Although the Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, it did not encourage the justices to resolve the issue in this case involving a challenge of California laws banning high-powered weapons.

Even in an otherwise straitforward report, they get it wrong. The California ban, or for that matter the federal one, has nothing to do with "high powered" weapons. It has to do with semi-automatic guns, wether they are wimpy or truly high powered, and not many guns affected by either ban are really high powered. Most fire an intermediate power catridge, that is between a pistol catridge and a full power rifle catridge, such as a .308 or 30-06.

[Joe Brower]

[Let's Roll]

My thoughts exactly - why would we want to push this issue right now?