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

Findlaw ^ | Reuters

[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.

[Joe Brower]

Thanks for the history lesson, archy. I'm reminded, though, of the aphorism, "One does not make history, one merely survives it".

[FierceDraka]

Interesting bit about the Finnish civil war, archy. At least they knew what had to be done to those damnable Reds: summary execution, harsh imprisonment, and loss of citizenship rights.

I've said it before, and I say it again: Communists, in advocating the destruction of every basic human right enjoyed by others, forfeit their own humanity, and should be dealt with as such.

[Maelstrom]

Sorry...if they *had* taken the case and *had* affirmatively agreed with the 9th Circuit you could make the same statement with a little massaging.

[archy]

Civil War-- Finland 1918!

It's now just three days until the celebration of Finland's declaration of independence from Sweden, on the 6th of December 1917, the act which led to the Civil Strife that followed.

BTW, and for informational purposes only, I note that the Civil War II list has been pulled...

Depends on how you search. I figure if the list does get pulled, it'll be time to quit donating funds for the upkeep of FR, and spend it on ammo instead- particularly APLP ammo at that point. Glad we're not there. Yet.

[mathluv]

Which one dies NEXT?!?

Excellent reason we don't need a dim anywhere near the White House, and need some Senators with brass ones.

[backhoe]

I figure if the list does get pulled, it'll be time to quit donating funds for the upkeep of FR, and spend it on ammo instead- particularly APLP ammo at that point. Glad we're not there. Yet.

I'm with you.

[Maelstrom]

In America they run the Universities, have heavily infiltrated primary schools, run most bureaucracies, and have heavily influenced elected offices at all levels of government, most noteably in the NE and CA.

[robertpaulsen]

"Natural Rights apply to everyone."

Really? Let's leave guns out of this for just a moment.

The natural rights tradition holds that an individual, in a state of nature, has a broad right to use "force" for self-preservation.

But, when individuals enter society, this right is given up (except in cases of immediate self-defense) in return for the protection received under the law.

Or are you one of those who believes that disputes between individuals be resolved through the private judgement of each individual, backed by private force?

[tacticalogic]

Every "dispute" is a matter of self-preservation, eh?

[robertpaulsen]

Pop quiz. Close your books.

The U.S. Constitution was written for what reason?
a) To define the powers of the new Federal Government
b) To define the powers of all the states
c) To define the powers of both the states and the new Federal Government
d) To define individual rights

Correct answer: a

The Constitution defined federal powers only. Each state already had their own state constitution. The second amendment said that the federal government shall not infringe the RKBA.

With the exception of (I believe) six states, each state has their own "second amendment".

[tacticalogic]

Next question:

The Bill of Rights was written for what reason? (hint- the name is a clue).

[robertpaulsen]

"The whole purpose of the 14th amendment was to "incorporate" the first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights against the states"

Horse hockey. The original purpose of the amendment was to provide citizenship for former slaves and give them full civil rights.

In my opinion, by the way, the United States v Cruikshank et al (94 U.S. 542)(1875) spells out the limitations of the 14th much better.

[robertpaulsen]

With the exception of the ninth and tenth amendments, the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution was written to establish and guarantee the relationship between the federal government and its citizens.

You have a different definition?

[Texas Federalist]

I share your frustration. But let me clarify what I meant by "bad set of facts" When the Supreme Court rules on a new issue, it waits for a set of facts that most clearly establishes the proposition of law that they want to establish. In this case, for example, if the justices were to rule that the Second Amendment conveys an individual right, I would speculate that they would rather take a case where the statute is clearly unconstitutional, like a challenge to D.C.'s total handgun ban, and let the lower courts iron out the rest. If they took the California case, once they established that there is an individual right, there would be too much dissent among the justices over whether the assault weapons ban was "narrowly tailored" to further a "compelling state interest". The result would be a muddled opinion that would be more difficult for lawyers and judges to use as precedent.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

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

Maybe it's time to start creating private militia organizations so that each member can own fire arms.

[robertpaulsen]

"must logically be ...", "He is probably ..."

If you're going to spread innuendos at least copy me.

Oh, by the way, bite me.

[Dead Corpse]

Art VI, Para 2
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.

"...or Laws of any State to the contrary..." kind dumps your whole argument right in the toilet.

Don't go away mad, just go away....

[tpaine]

Catch 22.
Under the 'terrorist act', such organizations can be outlawed by edict.

[tacticalogic]

You have a different definition?

Maybe. At any rate, I think we've established that the assertion that the Constitution "defines federal powers only" doesn't tell the whole story.

[harpseal]

The big question in any American CWII is what will the foriegn involvement be. The overall wealth of the USA will attract the carion feeders and they will be quick to put in troops.

It may well be more bloody than Finland and I for one do not think it willbe another generation before it happens. The left will not wait.