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.

[King Prout]

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!

[King Prout]

I'm putting it up on my aboutpage quote section.
good job.

[robertpaulsen]

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?

[Barnacle]

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.”

[tpaine]

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.

[panaxanax]

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.

[JohnGalt]

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.

[Dead Corpse]

Incorperation myth again huh? Try reading the Constitution sometime.

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

[Orangedog]

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.

[tpaine]

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.

[tpaine]

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

---

How would it read?

[Dead Corpse]

So it's OK for California and other States to continue ignoring our basic Human Rights? Not just to self defense, but this is also a Property case.

Think about how much legislation WILL get passed between now and when "just the right court" is seated. By then, there may literally be nothing left to defend!

[El Gato]

Actually neither is correct. What happened was: The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a ruling that upheld California's ban on assault weapons andthat declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun.

When the court declines to hear a case, it has no affect on the law, it creates no legal precedence, and does not express the Court's opinion on the merits of the case. The Court itself has declared that. However it does allow the ruling of the Court below (in this case the 9th Circuit) to stand, and that ruling is the law in those states within it's jurisdiction. So in California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Montana and Idaho, there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. AFAIK, only the fifth circuit, covering Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, has declared the right protected by the Second Amendment to be one belonging the individuals who make up the group known as "the people". Some say that ruling was mere dicta which does not carry much precedentual weight, and since it was only a 3 judge panel which ruled is not binding on the cicuit as a whole. The 9th circuit Silveira case was also by a 3 judge panel, but previously the entire circuit (en banc) ruled against an individual right.

[King Prout]

failure to overturn is tacit approval

[editor-surveyor]

Buy bullets! (then buy more bullets)

[editor-surveyor]

"It's time to make being a traitor to our constitution into a "big deal", in my book."

Agreed. The question is how.

[tpaine]

Think about how much legislation WILL get passed between now and when "just the right court" is seated. By then, there may literally be nothing left to defend
-DC-

---

"Wait till next year" may be the worse of the arguments/excuses presented here..
Anti-constitutional 'states rights' kooks are always with us, and affect politics very little.

But the vast numbers of right wing conservatives who believe that we can wait for the perfect court & the perfect congress to do the 'right thing', are truely among liberties biggest enemies.

[El Gato]

Moreover, I seem to remember that this case has a bad set of facts for gun rights advocates.

What bad set of facts? A bunch of upstanding and law abiding citizens filed suit against the state Attorney General to get him to stop violating their RKBA. There's really no more to it than that. Certain prominent "NRA lawyers" would have you believe that there is more to it than that, but that's pretty much it. There real problem withe the suit was that it involved Ugly Black Guns, which the courts supposedly have no sympathy for, even though more people are killed with handguns, which they want DC to start registering once again, rather than banning outright, and the fact that winning would have required the Court to answer two questions, (1)Does the second amendment protect the rights of individuals, and (2) does it apply to the states, probably through the 14th amendment. They would have preffered a single question, the first one. They also think trying to "save" Ugly Black Guns, is a non-starter. IOW they've given up on the primary purpose of the second amendment, and are down to arguing the secondary purposes of self defense against criminals, and sport shooting, or at least they prefer to start with the secondary purposes.

[beelzepug]

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

I agree. Unlike the 1st Amendment, the 2nd doesn't start with, "Congress shall make no law..."; it states quite simply that "...the right of the people...shall not be infringed." And, of course, none of the other nine amendments that make up the Bill of Rights deals with group rights, only those of the people, the individual citizens. Governments, per the 10th Amendment, are said to have (or NOT have) powers, not rights. And power flows (or once did) from the people.

[Orangedog]

I don't like it any more than you do. But when a 2nd Amendment case on whether or not individuals have a right to own guns goes to the Nine, it has to be the right case and go in front of the right justices. O'Connor is the swing vote and if you think she's pro gun, you need a strong pot of coffee.

You need to pick your fights carefully. Otherwise we end up with another civil war a half a million dead people.