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.

[tpaine]

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.

Just below you say that the "ruling is the law in those states within it's jurisdiction". --- Which is it? You can't have it both ways, can you?

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.

This 'idea' boggles the rational mind. It directly contradicts the 14th & the 2nd.

of 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.

The legal mind is a true mystery to me. How can these supposedly rational men believe such obviously specious 'rulings'?

Does anyone know? Is it the law schools that foster such illogical idiocy?

[Iscool]

Any political party, politician, judge (etc), organization or individual who trys to convince you that:
is either uneducated about OUR rights as citizens

I'm thinkin the problem is they are "over" educated...They took a couple of simple statements and educated themselves right out of it...Trying to make it mean something it doesn't...

It's not too complex...We need a militia of the people to watch over the gov't...The people will be armed in the event the militia is called upon to protect the country...

[MrFreedom]

UN and "respect for international law"

[MrFreedom]

THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/516731/posts

[Dan from Michigan]

I believe is SCOTUS doesn't hear it, than the 9th circuit ruling stands.

That said, this law is still illegal. If not by US law, then by my law.

[american spirit]

I agree...let's call ourselves "GAYS FOR GUN RIGHTS" and I'm sure courts will fall all over themselves to make it happen.

[american spirit]

Cities like NY, Chicago, etc. rule through the use of codes, regulations, rules and permits which are all patently unconstitutional and are created under "color of law", not "positive law". Since most cities are now incorporated, ostensibly their codes and regs have no more legal authority over "we the people" than do any rules or codes created by IBM.

[Indie]

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

Can you say TREASON? This is a very dangerous position for them to state. I would think they would be very worried about their physical security about now. There's a lot of wacko people out there that believe our Constitution was written in pretty simple English, and who might become quite agitated about such rulings and proceed to act in a patriotic manner.

[Indie]

gays for guns....

You won't believe it but there is such a thing: Pink Pistols. Look 'em up.

[jwalsh07]

Patience Dan, the DC case is winding its way through the courts. A much better case for our side. Of course if SCOTUS rules that the RTKABA is not an individual right, then some tough choices will have to be made.

A march on the Supreme Court by a couple of million gunowners during the oral arguments would be a nice choice though, for starters.

[FreedomCalls]

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 ??

YES! If you incorporate. A corporation can own guns. A corporation can own fully automatic Class III weapons (!) even if they are restricted for an individual. That's how a lot of people get around the Class III full auto restriction laws in many states. Another way is to get a friendly sheriff (campaign contributions will help make him more friendly) to deputize you and then you can own all of the LEO resticted weaponry.

[COEXERJ145]

Maybe in the end it is better that the current Court is not reviewing this issue. Think about this, do we really want five or six idiots to gut the 2nd Amendment based on some ruling by an E.U. court or a ruling from the U.N.? We already saw them take a whack @ the 10th Amendment with Lawrence v. Texas all because of what some idiot judges in Europe said.

[Antoninus]

According to our courts:

Sodomy: a civil right

Gun ownership: not a civil right

Personally, I don't recognize whatever foreign constitution these courts are upholding.

[FLAMING DEATH]

You're right.

"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."

Notice it does not say, "...shall not be infringed by Congress". If it did, then one could argue that States were free to infringe. But, the 2nd amendment doesn't care who might do the infringing...it is still illegal.

[tpaine]

the DC case is winding its way through the courts. A much better case for our side.


Of course if SCOTUS rules that the RTKABA is not an individual right, then some tough choices will have to be made.
A march on the Supreme Court by a couple of million gunowners during the oral arguments would be a nice choice though, for starters.
90 -jw07-

---

Sure the DC case is winding its way through the courts. And it may be a much better case for our side. -- But like this one, it will never be 'ruled' upon.
And million men marches will never happen.

Grass roots disobedience by a few brave men at the county level in CA will be necessary to end this madness.

A sheriff & county government willing to defy state 'authority' in this field, using US Constitutional law as their basis, and the jig would be up.
Defense money would pour into such a county from all over the US, forcing the issues into the USSC.

[jwalsh07]

Sure the DC case is winding its way through the courts. And it may be a much better case for our side. -- But like this one, it will never be 'ruled' upon. And million men marches will never happen.

You are simply wrong here. If, as we both believe there is a deep and abiding respect in this country for an indivdula second amendment, a million is easy.

Every January we pro lifers fill Pennsylvania Avenue from the court to the monument and fully across the avenue.

We then lobby our congresscritters up clos and in person.

It can be done Paine, it should be done.

[jwalsh07]

SCOTUS will have no choice but to take the DC case. You watch.

[unixfox]

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.

I guess we will just see about that now won't we.

I guess they REALLY do want a 2nd civil war.

[tpaine]

We already saw them take a whack @ the 10th Amendment with Lawrence v. Texas all because of what some idiot judges in Europe said.
92 COEXERJ14

---

According to our courts:
Sodomy: a civil right
Gun ownership: not a civil right
Personally, I don't recognize whatever foreign constitution these courts are upholding.
-93-

---

The 14th amendment equal rights ruling on Lawrence may make it easier for the twits on the USSC to see the 2nd as a individual right that must be enforced equally by our states.

In fact, this recent trend to 'incorporate' more & more civil rights may be another reason why the DC establishment does NOT want 2nd amendment issues before the USSC.

Do not forget, -- the administration is FOR renewing another federal assault weapons ban.

[Dan from Michigan]

I don't trust SCOTUS. Not one bit.