Tell that to this guy.
-archy-/-
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.
In what other courts, and possibly other panels of the same 5th circuit, will term as dicta. Remember that even though the 5th circuit declared the right an individual one, it did not subject it to the "strict scrutiny" test that a first amendment case would get. Rather it applied the "reasonable relationship to legitimate state interest" test, and ultimately ruled against Emerson and in favor of the Lautenberg "domestic violence misdemeaner" removal of the RKBA.
How have we managed to elect such a pack of slimy cowards to represent us?
< loud roar >
WHAAAAAAAT???
< /loud roar
You got it mixed-up a little:
The U.S. Supreme Court declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun
The U.S. Supreme Court declared there was no constitutional right for individuals owning guns declared there was no U.S. Supreme Court.
There you go. Much better.
-archy-/-
Stay the course.
My youngest challenged her teacher in high school regarding the Second Amendment and swayed her class to recognize that the teacher was wrong.
Even young teens can understand the context of the American Revolution and the resulting protection of the right to keep and bear arms.
I did'nt know he had a middle name ! What is it ? I don't even want to venture a guess.
Heavenly. As in *Heavenly Father*, the patronymic from which the dimunitive form is derived.
-archy-/-
His own state, his own home county, and the precinct in which he voted.
We were very busy in that part of Tennessee for the 4 months before the election. The funny part is, we had thought it would be important, since a decisive Gore defeat in Tennessee while the California and other West Coast polls were open might have been an influence on some Western voters. But no, they delayed releasing the embartassing news, and it wasn't the influence we had hoped.
But had Gore taken Tennessee's electoral votes, the Florida debacle would have been unnecessary and meaningless, as Tennessee's 11 electoral votes would have would have put Gore at 271, over the top and victorious. And the archetect and artist who helped devise that strategic course that was so critical, if for the wrong reason, and put it into practice is known only to a handful of others involved, and a few Gore cronies with a taste for retaliation. But it's not the first time a patriot's heroic efforts have gone unheralded, and it matters little to him now.
-archjy-/-
I don't think so. The sheep will always be sheep, so when the wolves begin to feed upon them, the sheep will for the most part only bleat and bleed, and scream and cry about how terribly unfair it all is.
Consider the example of the Finnish Civil War of 1918; only 4 months in length; but once it was done with, Finland's Reds were left to lick their wounds, most from behind barbed wire or in exile, and when the Soviet Union attacked Finland with a million and a half troops twenty-one years later, the Finns hunted those Reds down too, and again in four months time sent the half-million survivors back home with their tails between their legs wondering at their luck in remaining alive when two-thirds of their number did not.
And when in 1991 the Red flag of the Soviet Union came down, that of free Finland was still flying, and still flies. We've got a great deal to learn from our Finnish cousins, both in terms of methodology and motivation:
In Red-dominated areas, 1,649 people, mostly businessmen, independent farmers, and other members of the middle class were murdered for political reasons. In response, the Whites embarked on their own reign of terror, the White Terror, which proved much more ferocious than the Red Terror. First, there were reprisals against defeated Reds, in the form of mass executions of Red prisoners. These killings were carried on by local White commanders over the opposition of White leadership. At least 8,380 Reds were killed, more than half after the Whites' final victory. Another component of the White Terror was the suffering of the Reds imprisoned after the war. The Whites considered these Reds to be criminals and feared that they might start another insurrection. By May 1918, they had captured about 80,000 Red troops, whom they could neither house nor feed. Placed in a number of detention camps, the prisoners suffered from malnutrition and general neglect, and within a few months an estimated 12,000 of them had died. The third aspect of the White Terror was legal repression. As a result of mass trials, approximately 67,000 Reds were convicted of participating in the war, and of these 265 were executed; the remainder lost their rights of citizenship.
In only a few months, about 30,000 Finns perished, less than a quarter of them on the battlefield, the rest in summary executions and in detention camps. These deaths amounted to about 1 percent of the total population of Finland. By comparison, the bloodiest war in the history of the United States, the Civil War, cost the lives of about 2 percent of the population, but that loss was spread out over four years
The present population of the United States, per the 2000 census, was 281,421,906 on April 1, 2000. Figure 1% of that number would be around 3 million. I figure it'll take a little longer than for the Finns, around half a year to a year, depending on the time of year and a few other factors.
-archy-/-
Then how do you explain these sections:
Art I, sec 10:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws; and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
or from Article. IV.
[Section 1.] Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
[Section 2.] The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime. No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Or Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Most of that seems to defining Powers of states as well.
I don't think He has a middle name. It should have read
Jesus H.(IO) Christ!
;-}
But at first reading they spin it to sound as if the Supreme Court rules or says the individule has no right.......
Not only is there such a thing, they filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief in the Silveira case.
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.