California Assault Weapon Ban Stands

KTVU ^ | December 2, 2003 | Associated Press

[yonif]

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.

Many other groups wanted the court to take the politically charged case, including the National Rifle Association, the Pink Pistols, a group of gay and lesbian gun owners; the Second Amendment Sisters; Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws; and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

"Citizens need the Second Amendment for protection of their families, homes and businesses," lawyer Gary Gorski of Fair Oaks, Calif., wrote in the appeal filed on behalf of his rugby teammates and friends.

The challengers included a police SWAT officer, a Purple Heart recipient, a former Marine sniper, a parole officer, a stockbroker and others with varied political views.

Timothy Rieger, California's deputy attorney general, said the case involved regulations on "rapid-fire rifles and pistols that have been used on California's school grounds to kill children."

The Second Amendment says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the amendment's intent was to protect gun rights of militias, not individuals. A more conservative appeals court in New Orleans has ruled that individuals have a constitutional right to guns.

Justices refused without comment to review the 9th Circuit decision.

One 9th Circuit judge, Alex Kozinski, said the panel was off-base and its "labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it -- and is just as likely to succeed." He and some other judges had wanted to reverse the decision.

The decision was written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who said the Supreme Court's guidance on the meaning of the right to bear arms was "not entirely illuminating."

In 2002, the Bush administration told the Supreme Court in another case that it believed the Constitution protects an individual's right to possess guns. The announcement reversed the government's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment. Even then, Justice Department lawyers said the high court need not test the principle.

Gorski said he was surprised by the court's action Monday. "I guess the Supreme Court thinks it's acceptable to deprive 20 percent of the people of a major constitutional right," he said.

Mathew Nosanchuk, an attorney for the pro-gun-control Violence Policy Center, said that the California law is a model for legislation pending in Congress, to renew and strengthen the 1994 federal assault weapons ban.

The high court's last major gun case was in 1939, when justices upheld a federal law prohibiting the interstate transport of sawed-off shotguns.

Daniel Schmutter of Paramus, N.J., representing Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, had told the justices in a filing that they should decide "once and for all" what protections gun owners have.

The case is Silveira v. Lockyer, 03-51.

[yonif]

BANG

[ConservativeMan55]

Damn Communists.

[Puppage]

rapid-fire rifles and pistols that have been used on California's school grounds to kill children

Yawn. I was waiting for the "it's for the children" scare tactic.

[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

"The high court's last major gun case was in 1939, when justices upheld a federal law prohibiting the interstate transport of sawed-off shotguns."

No they didn't. They remanded the case back down to the lower courts to decide (they weaseled).

The truth is:

The Supreme Court loves gun control and.............

The Supreme Court knows gun control is uconstitutional, therefore.....

The Supreme Court ducks the issue forever.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and the 9th Circus Court of Appeals are in DIRECT conflict on gun control and the US Supreme Court has abdicated its authority on the issue.

[chudogg]

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

Actually, in U.S. vs Miller, the court ruled that the 2nd ammendment does give the individual the right to own weapons, only as long as the weapon is a military weapon.

[OXENinFLA]

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira58.html

We don’t need no steenking 2nd Amendment

by John Silveira

---

Is this the same guy that brought the case??

[international american]

COWARDS!!....sigh1

[Flux Capacitor]

[lawdog]

How about a toast and a cheer to those Nine cowardly traitors...of course they have plenty of company in those two other branches of "gubermint"...

Is any clear thinking American really surprised ?

Power is a narcotic and they are the worlds biggest junkies. Didn't the Founding Fathers warn us ? I am waiting for the defenders of the "federal judi-ocracy" to show up and spin this one.

[Beck_isright]

Welcome to 1984, American style. Now please post the serial numbers of all your weapons, your home address and phone number so the authorities can fingerprint you and safely dispose of those evil firearms. </sarcasm shot off

[glock rocks]

The Solution

 

To accomplish the goal of ridding our streets of assault weapons, the new law must ban all--not just some--semiautomatic assault rifles, pistols, and shotguns.  Strong, effective legislation that will force the gun industry to finally cease the production and marketing of assault weapons--the "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003"--has been introduced in the U.S. House and Senate.  More than 100 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have already signed on in support of the House bill (H.R. 2038), which is sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York.  Support is steadily building for the Senate bill (S. 1431), sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey. 

straight from the horses butt (vpc)

[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

"How about a toast and a cheer to those Nine cowardly traitors...of course they have plenty of company in those two other branches of "gubermint"..."

The truth is: I believe that the US Supreme Court is really skating on thin ice and something is gunna break soon. The Supreme Court is going the way of the UN Security Council. Seriously, I don't give a damn what they babble, anymore (they ALL suck donkey B@##S).

[Darksheare]

They shall never ban my arsenal of popscicle sticks!
Then I shall have a monopoly of power through my popscicle stick arsenal, and no-one shall be able to stand against me!

Pretty soon, that's what we'll be reduced to.

[ConservativeMan55]

Thank You! Thats my new wallpaper!

[Revel]

"the right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If they had intended to mean that the militia was not the people then they would have replaced the word "People" with "militia". The militia was not a government controlled military. They are called solder's. Also we have past precidence. How is it that after 225 years the courts suddenly want to change the way things are and always have been for the united states.

What we have is more twisting of the legal structure of this country in order to appease the Marxists that have taken over. The NRA has to start getting tuff as they are the main force that could do something about this. They need to get there members fum ming and ready to take action. Starting with large demonstrations and making demands for congress to slap the Marxists down.

[Feiny]

Keep your powder dry.......

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

Text of the Second Amendment
"A well regulated Militia
being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Anyone who actually reads AND understands the 2nd Amendment will see that there is no need or authority for any type of gun registration and there is no need for anyone to have to apply for a license to carry a gun.
Any political party, politician, judge (etc), organization or individual who trys to convince you that:
1) you must register a firearm
2) you must pass a background check
3) you must wait (x) amount of days before you can get your firearm
4) you need to have a license to carry a gun
is either uneducated about OUR rights as citizens
OR is actively working to undermine OUR country.

How Did the Founders Understand the Second Amendment?

CONGRESS in 1866, 1941 and 1986 REAFFIRMS THE SECOND AMENDMENT
The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment right to keep and bear firearms,
originated in the United States Congress in 1789 before being ratified by the States.
On three occasions since then--in 1866, 1941, and 1986--
Congress enacted statutes to reaffirm this guarantee of personal freedom
and to adopt specific safeguards to enforce it.

ON THE DAY BEFORE Thanksgiving 1993,
the 103d US Congress brought forth a constitutional turkey.
The 103d Congress decided that the Second Amendment did not mean what it said
("...shall not be infringed") and passed the Brady bill.
How the Brady Bill Passed (and subsequently - "Instant Check")
When the Brady Bill was passed into law on November 24, 1993,
the Senate voted on the Conference Report
and passed the Brady Bill by UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

"More of that common sense gun control"!There should'nt be ANY gun laws at all.