Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

High Court Won't Review Ban on Assault Weapons [declared no individual constitutional right]
Findlaw ^ | Reuters

Posted on 12/02/2003 12:59:42 PM PST by tpaine

High Court Won't Review Ban on Assault Weapons

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a ruling that upheld California's ban on assault weapons and declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun.

Without comment, the justices let stand the ruling by a U.S. appeals court in San Francisco that the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms.

The ruling differed from the position taken by the Justice Department under Attorney General John Ashcroft, who changed the government's long-standing policy, and by a federal appeals court in New Orleans that ruled that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms.

California enacted the nation's most sweeping assault weapons ban in 1999, amending legislation adopted 10 years earlier. The state legislature amended the law to ban assault weapons based on a host of features, instead of specific makes and models.

A group of individuals who own assault weapons or want to buy them challenged the law, saying it violated the Second Amendment and other constitutional rights.

A federal judge dismissed the constitutional claims, and the appeals court agreed in upholding the law.

The appeals court said the Second Amendment protected the gun rights of militias, not individuals. The Second Amendment states: "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." Gary Gorski, an attorney for those challenging the law, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying the Constitution protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms without the threat of state confiscation or compulsory registration.

The National Rifle Association supported the appeal.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; cwii; forfreedom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-352 next last
"The U.S. Supreme Court declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun." -- Bet me....
1 posted on 12/02/2003 12:59:42 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
read later
2 posted on 12/02/2003 1:02:23 PM PST by Orangedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; Dan from Michigan; hobbes1
The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a ruling that upheld California's ban on assault weapons and declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun.
Without comment, the justices let stand the ruling by a U.S. appeals court in San Francisco that the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms.

How did the Supreme Court declare anything when they declined without comment. The two statements are inherently contradictory. Nice of Rueters to try to spin it, though.

3 posted on 12/02/2003 1:02:24 PM PST by NeoCaveman (all the terrorists are supporting Kucinich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; AAABEST; Ace2U; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; amom; AndreaZingg; Anonymous2; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

4 posted on 12/02/2003 1:02:34 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Jesus H. Christ!

Which one dies NEXT?!?

5 posted on 12/02/2003 1:03:17 PM PST by Old Sarge (Serving YOU... on Operation Noble Eagle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
This is crap. Complete crap. Like I said yesterday... who did our fore fathers have in mind when creating the second amendment? The government? How does one revolt against a country and not allow the individual the right to keep and bear arms???? If they think the second amendment does not apply to the individual, then which groups does it apply to? Their non-ruling sets up challenges to every single amendment being about a collective group- not the individual. God Lord, this is socialism!

The SCOTUS are extremely dense and lacking common sense. Instead of sitting on their appointed thrones, they need to come back down to earth and realize that yes, they too, are Americans just like everyone else.

Bastards.

6 posted on 12/02/2003 1:08:46 PM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I wonder which side of this issue Scalia, who alos seems never to to have heard of unenumerated rights, came down on?
7 posted on 12/02/2003 1:10:03 PM PST by eno_ (Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; Badray; Travis McGee; Squantos; Eaker; Chapita; sneakypete; Lurker; Noumenon
80+ million Americans say we do have that right, as does the clear language of the 2nd amendment.

Who are they going to send to enforce this blatant, oath-breaking ruling?

That's where this ultimatley leads if they keep pushing it.

8 posted on 12/02/2003 1:11:24 PM PST by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a ruling that upheld California's ban on assault weapons and declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun.

This sentence is ingeniously poorly worded.

Which of the following meanings will most Sheeple take it to mean, and which does it actually mean?

1. The U.S. Supreme Court (A) declined on Monday to review a ruling that upheld California's ban on assault weapons and (B) declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun.

or

2. The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a ruling that (A) upheld California's ban on assault weapons and (B) declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun.

My money says the actual meaning is (2), but most Sheeple will think it says (1). And the criminals at Reuters know this and intend this.

9 posted on 12/02/2003 1:13:20 PM PST by coloradan (Hence, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
The gun grabbers at Reuters sure know how to turn a phrase. See my previous post in this thread.
10 posted on 12/02/2003 1:15:04 PM PST by coloradan (Hence, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
I have read a lot about this case in recent days, so maybe some folks can help.

On the grounds of Federalism, perhaps the court is saying that the Second Amendment prohibits the federalis from regulating fire arms, however, the states can decide for themselves how to regulate firearms.

That would make sense to me.

The problem or contradiction here (well really, the absurdity) is that the Supreme Court took up a case and overturned a local law on sodomy.

How do the two positions fit?

Well, they don't in any logical sense.
11 posted on 12/02/2003 1:16:11 PM PST by JohnGalt (How few were left who had seen the Republic!---Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun

Technically, they're right.

There is no constitutional right to own a gun.

It's an inalienable one.

12 posted on 12/02/2003 1:18:13 PM PST by MamaTexan (If ya cain't bark with the big dogs, get off the front porch (:- p)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; All
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.


13 posted on 12/02/2003 1:18:44 PM PST by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub (Want better gun control? Try eating more carrots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
You are correct...but the ruling in California stands and will spread from there.
14 posted on 12/02/2003 1:22:56 PM PST by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
No. the Second Amendment restricts the States as well. What good would it be if it was otherwise? You'd get precisely the situation we have in Cali.

For reference see Art II Sec. 4, and the 10th and 14th Amendments.

15 posted on 12/02/2003 1:25:42 PM PST by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
The gun grabbers at Reuters sure know how to turn a phrase. See my previous post in this thread.

Yes they do. See #3.

16 posted on 12/02/2003 1:26:51 PM PST by NeoCaveman (all the terrorists are supporting Kucinich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
BTT!!!!!!
17 posted on 12/02/2003 1:28:41 PM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
The 14th is not a 'real' Amendment, but it seems the federalis are selectively deciding when it applies and when it doesn't, that was my point.

As to your over all point, the Bill of Rights is a list, or really, a reiteration of things the federalis cannot do, that is all.

It clearly is no good to hope that the federalis will protect rights within your state but they will over turn laws that they don't like as with the Lawrence case.
18 posted on 12/02/2003 1:29:40 PM PST by JohnGalt (How few were left who had seen the Republic!---Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: Jeff Head
In reality (as opposed to Rueterville), the US Supreme Court merly "denied cert." By law and precedent, it means nothing, other than the Supreme Court had other things to do, besides deal with this matter, was too hot at that time, or, more likely, wanted the lower courts to flesh out the ruling.

It will eventually deal with this matter, however, as there is a clear split. The "court in New Orleans" was the 5th Circuit, a co-equal, and much more respected by actual lawyers and jurist (as opposed to law professors and "journalist"), court than the 9th Circus, the most reversed and un-followed court in the country.

In short, this is a big yawn.
20 posted on 12/02/2003 1:32:11 PM PST by MeanWestTexan (www.xenu.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rintense; archy; Squantos
This is how I explain the nd to people who aren't familiar with it.

The ORIGINAL writing of the 2nd Amendment has three commas.

"A well regulated Militia(1), being necessary to the security of a free State(2), the right of the people to keep and bear arms(3), shall not be infringed." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)

I'm not a scholar in English, but I seem to recall my teacher of many years ago saying that words between commas in a sentence should not change the meaning of the original sentence, only explain it better to a reader.

#1 is the basic intent of the sentence. All black letters.

#1 A well regulated Militia, shall not be infringed."

In #2 I retracted, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". Now the original meaning of the sentence is explained a little better than the original.

#2 A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed."

In #3 I retracted, "being necessary to the security of a free State". Now the original meaning of the sentence still is explained a little better than the original.

#3 A well regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

When "being necessary to the security of a free State" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is included into the basic sentence, now we see the FULL meaning the Founders had when they wrote the complete sentence.

This is the gun control peoples writing of the 2nd. Note the ONE comma.

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state(1), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

They are insinuating that the the original sentence is "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and that "the security of a free state" should be controlled by "A well-regulated militia. "

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is not infringed because only the Militia should have these arms, not the common citizen.

I know scholars have much deeper and clearer explanations than I do, but my explanation seems to help people understand the Founders intentions without having to read numerous pages.

21 posted on 12/02/2003 1:33:40 PM PST by B4Ranch (Wave your flag, don't waive your rights!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rintense
"who did our fore fathers have in mind when creating the second amendment?"

According to Judge Robert H. Bork and other authoritarians, the founders intended the 2nd Amendment to cover a States right to bear arms. According to the plain English of the various Founders and that found in the Bill of Rights itself, the Amendment was written to cover individual rights.

Their non-ruling simply means that less than 4 judges thought the matter important enough to hear the case. IOWs they're satisfied with the status quo.

22 posted on 12/02/2003 1:33:40 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
80+ million Americans say we do have that right

I have said it before in this forum, and I will say it again...

There is no incentive for the courts or Congress to rule positively on the Second Amendment. There also is no incentive for GOA or the NRA to see an end to the discussion. Their interests lie in perpetuating the issue, and thus their own future.

The only way that the Second Amendment will be protected and interpreted as a protection of an individual right is for those 80-million Ameircans to take it to the ballot box.

The Second Amendment needs to be the number one litmus test for earning our vote.

When, and only when, the political establishment realizes that no one from dog catcher to President can be elected without complete and active support of the Second Amendment, we will have assured ourselves and those who follow some measure of liberty.

It has to come from the grass roots, folks, not from highly paid lobbyists and arrogant politicians.

23 posted on 12/02/2003 1:35:10 PM PST by Beenliedto (A Free Stater getting ready to pack my bags!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rintense
Yep, some of the rights in the Bill of Rights are for the State, not the people. Otherwise the citizens might get uppity. Long live the United Socialist States of America.
24 posted on 12/02/2003 1:35:45 PM PST by Sam Cree (democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Bit by bit, piece by piece, they move however slowly until the they achieve their objective or are stopped before hand. It's just a matter of unity and what will it take before the majority decides to unite? England and Austrailia waited too long.
25 posted on 12/02/2003 1:37:35 PM PST by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
How did the Supreme Court declare anything when they declined without comment. The two statements are inherently contradictory. Nice of Rueters to try to spin it, though.

Well said. All the same, this event demonstrates the need to get a Supreme Court that will uphold the Constitution.

26 posted on 12/02/2003 1:41:24 PM PST by Barnacle (Spell check is cool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Article IV, Sec 2:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

If you are immune from prosecution over owning firearms at the Federal level, then you are immune at the States level.

When in doubt see Art VI, para II
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

And just in case that isn't unambiguous ENOUGH... they then went on to add in the 10th and 14th which are VERY real amenments that were fully ratified.

27 posted on 12/02/2003 1:42:47 PM PST by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Barnacle
this event demonstrates the need to get a Supreme Court that will uphold the Constitution.

That will only happen when we elect people who will appoint and confirm people who will support the Constitution.

28 posted on 12/02/2003 1:43:40 PM PST by Beenliedto (A Free Stater getting ready to pack my bags!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Okay, so what is your explanation for why the refused to hear the case?

That is what I was asking.
29 posted on 12/02/2003 1:46:12 PM PST by JohnGalt (How few were left who had seen the Republic!---Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Keep your powder dry. The second American Revolution is imminent; and most of the other side is unarmed.
30 posted on 12/02/2003 1:49:34 PM PST by clee1 (Where's the beef???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
It does not appear that this is an accurate account of the ruling does it?
31 posted on 12/02/2003 1:52:08 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Javelina
So if it is not an individual right to own a gun, we can get a group of people together and have the right for the group to own guns ??
32 posted on 12/02/2003 1:54:14 PM PST by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
They have dodged the issue since Miller. Too much political upheaval if they came down on the side they should. There is also the whole UN and "respect for international law" recently voiced by O'Connor and the global push for small arms control.

The implications are truely global in scope. This does not invalidate the fact that we NEVER should have gotten to this point in the first place. The USSC cannot duck this issue forever. But as we continually see, our USSC is broken and our legislaotrs are pretty much doing whatever the hell they want.

33 posted on 12/02/2003 1:55:10 PM PST by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
They most likely refused to hear the case because neither the liberals nor the conservatives on the Court were sure how O'Connor would vote and would rather visit the issue at a later time. Moreover, I seem to remember that this case has a bad set of facts for gun rights advocates.
34 posted on 12/02/2003 1:58:16 PM PST by Texas Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
They dodged the issue in Miller too.
35 posted on 12/02/2003 1:59:08 PM PST by Texas Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch; spunkets
My take on the SECOND,

FWIW


"A well-regulated
well trained, equipped and functioning in a proper manner
Militia
Title 10, Sec. 311(a) U. S. Code- "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age...."
being necessary to the security of a free State,
A Free State is secure if it is able to defend itself against foreign invasion and the tyranny of its own government.
the right
as opposed to government granted privileges!
of the people
"the People" - not a "group" of people, the States, nor the Militia.
to keep and bear
keep (to own or possess) and bear (to carry)
Arms,
weapons, including but not limited to firearms.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.“

infringed -- violated or encroached upon
36 posted on 12/02/2003 2:00:36 PM PST by T Wayne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"The U.S. Supreme Court ... declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun."

"Without comment, the justices let stand the ruling by a U.S. appeals court in San Francisco"

Anyone see a conflict in the above two statements? You should.

The USSC let stand a ruling by the appeals court -- the appeals court stated there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun.

The erroneous conclusion is that since the USSC declined to review the case (WITHOUT COMMENT), they support the appellate court. Not necessarily true.

37 posted on 12/02/2003 2:00:53 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eno_; everyone
I wonder which side of this issue Scalia, who alos seems never to to have heard of unenumerated rights, came down on?
7 -eno-




I tried to find more info of that type, and can't.
Does anyone know if the court breaks down their voting on such decisions?

Do they make any comments at all? -- Will a record of the arguments be published?

38 posted on 12/02/2003 2:01:14 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out the Rickenbacker in me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Texas Federalist
Thank you.

That seems logical.
39 posted on 12/02/2003 2:02:03 PM PST by JohnGalt (How few were left who had seen the Republic!---Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The appeals court said the Second Amendment protected the gun rights of militias, not individuals.


40 posted on 12/02/2003 2:04:10 PM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; mhking; Joe Brower; archy; Shooter 2.5; Travis McGee; from occupied ga; 45Auto; ...
The U.S. Supreme Court declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun

< loud roar >
WHAAAAAAAT???
< /loud roar >
Exactly WHAT edition of the US Constitution do the Stupremes use, anywhay? The DNC-produced coloring-book??? Just damn!

41 posted on 12/02/2003 2:07:14 PM PST by King Prout (...he took a face from the ancient gallery, then he... walked on down the hall....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T Wayne
I'm putting it up on my aboutpage quote section.
good job.
42 posted on 12/02/2003 2:09:44 PM PST by King Prout (...he took a face from the ancient gallery, then he... walked on down the hall....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
What does Article II, Section 4 have to do with this?

The Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states. As a matter of fact, prior to the 14th amendment, none of the BOR applied to the states. The U.S. Constitution was written to define federal powers.

With the passage of the 14th, most, but not all, of the BOR have been "incorporated" through the courts, and now apply to the states.

The Second Amendment has never been incorporated. Ever wonder how a city like New York or Chicago can ban the ownership of guns?

43 posted on 12/02/2003 2:10:45 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: spunkets; rintense
According to Judge Robert H. Bork and other authoritarians, the founders intended the 2nd Amendment to cover a States right to bear arms.

Right, and someday it will be argued; “The founders intended the 1st Amendment to cover a State's right to free exercise of religion, freedom of speech and press the right of State sponsored organizations to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

44 posted on 12/02/2003 2:13:04 PM PST by Barnacle (Spell check is cool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt; yall
JohnGalt wrote:
Okay, so what is your explanation for why the refused to hear the case?
That is what I was asking.





They refused because they think they can get away with it.
And every indication is, -- they will, once again.

We see the proof right here at FR, from some of the reactions on this thread.. -- It's "no big deal".. ~??~ I beg to differ.

It's time to make it a big deal, in my book.






45 posted on 12/02/2003 2:14:15 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out the Rickenbacker in me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: clee1
Hopefully we can use the ballot box to win this war. If not, then so be it. I will NEVER give up my guns and I will NEVER give up my freedom as long as my heart is beating.
46 posted on 12/02/2003 2:14:33 PM PST by panaxanax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Right, but by big deal some mean vote Republican, and others mean something else.

I mean something else.

I already knew the courts were lousy defenders of our cultural heritage which respects the rights for citizens to own firearms for the purposed of self-defense against tyranny in its many forms.

My point, is that nothing new has been learned from this ruling so I was trying to look at it from a different angle.
47 posted on 12/02/2003 2:17:46 PM PST by JohnGalt (How few were left who had seen the Republic!---Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Incorperation myth again huh? Try reading the Constitution sometime.

The Second got all the incorperation it needed when it was ratified.

48 posted on 12/02/2003 2:21:09 PM PST by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
There is also the whole UN and "respect for international law" recently voiced by O'Connor and the global push for small arms control.

Which is why this case should not be heard by the Nine. Think about how that decision would read.

49 posted on 12/02/2003 2:24:39 PM PST by Orangedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; everyone
JohnGalt wrote:
Okay, so what is your explanation for why the refused to hear the case?
That is what I was asking.




They refused because they think they can get away with it.
And every indication is, -- they will, once again.
We see the proof right here at FR, from some of the reactions on this thread..


See where robertpaulsen wrote:

"The Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states. The Second Amendment has never been incorporated Ever wonder how a city like New York or Chicago can ban the ownership of guns?"

-- It's "no big deal".. ~??~
I beg to differ.

It's time to make being a traitor to our constitution into a "big deal", in my book.
50 posted on 12/02/2003 2:27:08 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out the Rickenbacker in me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-352 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson