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.

[RogueIsland]

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

Natural Rights apply to everyone. The B.O.R. "grants" no rights, merely affirms their existence. Whether it does so soley within the context of the Federal Government is of no relevance, as the Natural Rights of Man inhere to every American by birthright, and may not be infringed by any government at any level. This is basic Classical Liberal political theory, upon which this country is based.

[tpaine]

editor-surveyor wrote:

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

Agreed. The question is how.

---

At one point, shortly after it was founded, this forum held great promise as to "how". -- By holding our public officals up to public ridicule for rulings like this one.


Damn shame what happened to it.

[jwalsh07]

The Second Amendment has never been incorporated.

First of all, the second amendment does not need to be incorporated. It stands on its own two feet. It is an individual right both enumerated and guaranteed to all Americans in good standing. And second of all the 14th Amendment worshippers would be wise to find another deity.

Ever wonder how a city like New York or Chicago can ban the ownership of guns?

They can't, it's unconstitutional.

[Lazamataz]

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

I agree with you. And I want to make it very clear that I'm not being smart or sarcastic. I'm being quite earnest.

[Dead Corpse]

Mugwumps. Fence sitters. Prime reasons why we are where we are at and heading for civil unrest.

Damn them for their cowardice.

[Joe Brower]

Actually, no such declaration was made by SCOTUS. They simply denied cert without comment. This bit about a so-called "declaration" is simply Reuter's disinformational spin on the denial.

A pack of sneaky and deceitful bastards, Reuters is.

[tacticalogic]

Evangelical social conservative/political opportunists. The end justifies the means.

[Orangedog]

How would it read?

Try to imagine Ruth Buzzy-Gindsburg writing it and use your imagination. You might need a drink afterwords.

[Dead Corpse]

I'd rather BE one of those half million dead in a civil war than wait around until they start raiding gun owners homes and packing the survivors off to the camps.

[bc2]

molon labe

sooner or later... however I don't think "sooner" is ideal, and I'm not sure "later" is going to be any better.

either way, I'm still confident things will get a lot worse before we make them any better.

[jwalsh07]

Paine,

Is this the Silveira case or was there another case winding its way through the courts? I know SCOTUS denied cert in Silveira but the way this article is written, it makes it sound like it wasn't Silveira.

[tpaine]

Orangedog wrote: I don't like it any more than you do. But ---

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

---

-- 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.

A civil war will not be averted by allowing infringements on civil liberties.
I see it as exactly opposite. Civil disobedience to the '34NFA, '68 GCA, or the AWB would have given notice to the gun control freaks. -- Appeasment won, and here we stand, losing bit by bit.

[coloradan]

I'm pretty sure this is Silveira.

[coloradan]

Gorski is mentioned in the article as the plaintiff's attorney. That makes it Silveira for sure.

[Orangedog]

I'd rather BE one of those half million dead in a civil war than wait around until they start raiding gun owners homes and packing the survivors off to the camps.

What do you think will be the final straw that causes that civil war?! This case going in front of those particular justices will do that. Wait until one of them retires and Bush does a recess appointment then bring another case.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Jesus H. Christ!

I did'nt know he had a middle name ! What is it ? I don't even want to venture a guess.

[jwalsh07]

Yep, good catch, thanks.

[Pro-Bush]

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.

Amendment II
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.

This is no good. I can only hope that Bush gets the opportunity to assign a conservative to the Supreme court, at least one that thinks along the same lines as Ashcroft!

[El Gato]

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

Actually not. The copy now on display has three commas, but the original one sent from Congress to the printer and at least some of those sent to the states for ratification had only one. The one between the two phrases "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State," and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.". It's a long sentence and if you speak it you may have a tendency to pause at the location of the other two commas, that's all they indicate, whereas the comma separating the two phrases does exactly that. The first (dependent) phrase is a sort of preamble, giving a reason "why", the second (independent) phrase tells "what". The dependent phrase does not restrict the independent phrase's command.

Until fairly recently (in terms of the time since the Bill of Rights was passed) the printed versions were the single comma one. The surplus commas were not put there by Congress, and were not voted on by Congress or the States, they were put there by the printer/transriber. See the SAF site and Talk,Politics,Gun FAQ

In any event, three commas or only one, the command is clear "the right of the people to keep and bear arms(,)shall not be infringed".

[B4Ranch]

Thank you for the clarification.