Posted on 11/28/2004 7:56:02 AM PST by Huck
As current ACCEPTED legal precedent goes, until the Supreme Court rules on the difference between the Ninth Circuit ruling, and the Fifth Circuit ruling, the "absolute individual rights" interpretation (which it happens is the one "I" agree is correct) is NOT the universally accepted law of the United States.
Right with you, porcine one. Make her the first nominee and tell Snarlin' Arlen if he screws up once he's gone. Reading the footnotes of that speech stunned me as much as the speech itself ... Hayek, Ayn Rand, Tom Bethell ... can you believe she is on the California Supreme Court now?? Liberal skulls will implode over this one.
"Correctly", only if you regard the 2nd Amendment as an arguable proposition. It is not arguable, it is a clearly worded right of the people of the US, not to be infringed.
"Reading between the lines", I suspect she (if appointed to the Supreme Court) would fall into an "individual right" point of view, since she is a "strict constructionist".
Guess all you want, but from her own words, quoted above, it is quite clear that she thinks the 2nd can be infringed upon by our States.
Sorry bubba, but you are wrong on all counts.
Why do you say that if you 'wish' otherwise?
Not that I don't wish you were right--but I've been following and studying this issue for a LONG time,
Me too. I acquired my first gun about 60 years ago. And gave up my gunsmithing license in protest to the GCA of 68.
and what I said is the current correct legal situation as it stands under state and Federal law,
You call it 'correct & legal', I call our current CA 'situation' a clear violation of our RKBA's.
and is what you or I would be tried and sentenced under if we were somehow brought to court on the issue.
Which proves what? That the 2nd amendment does not apply in CA?
As current ACCEPTED legal precedent goes, until the Supreme Court rules on the difference between the Ninth Circuit ruling, and the Fifth Circuit ruling, the "absolute individual rights" interpretation (which it happens is the one "I" agree is correct) is NOT the universally accepted law of the United States.
Many of our inalienable rights are not universally accepted in the USA. To me, that is an unacceptable situation. -- Although some bubbas differ.
Agree--the result of such a successful nomination would make Mt. St. Helens look like a damp firecracker.
As an unlimited individual right---yup--exactly that (likewise Oregon and Washington and whatever other states the Ninth Circuit ruling covers). The only thing saving our asses in those other states is that, unlike California and New Jersey, those states DO have RKBA clauses in their STATE constitutions.
"Many of our inalienable rights are not universally accepted in the USA. To me, that is an unacceptable situation. -- Although some bubbas differ."
I agree--but my point is that your position is a nicely theoretical one, while mine is simply pointing out what the courts, and federal and state officers will use to make legal judgements. Thee and me think that is wrong---but that cuts no ice when a person is up against the justice system.
As an unlimited individual right---yup--exactly that (likewise Oregon and Washington and whatever other states the Ninth Circuit ruling covers).
The only thing saving our asses in those other states is that, unlike California and New Jersey, those states DO have RKBA clauses in their STATE constitutions.
Which brings us full circle. You say about Brown:
~ " --- she is following the law correctly."
"Correctly", only if you regard the 2nd Amendment as an arguable proposition.
It is not arguable, it is a clearly worded right of the people of the US, not to be infringed.
"Reading between the lines", I suspect she (if appointed to the Supreme Court) would fall into an "individual right" point of view, since she is a "strict constructionist".
Guess all you want, but from her own words, quoted above earlier, it is quite clear that she thinks the 2nd can be infringed upon by our States.
No, correctly in that she had/has no other choice under existing precedent.
"It is not arguable, it is a clearly worded right of the people of the US, not to be infringed."
In your opinion and my opinion, but not in the opinion of the currently constituted courts of the USA. You can indulge in all the wishful thinking you want---that isn't going to change the reality of the situation one iota.
The ONLY way the situation will change to the position you and I want is if the Supreme Court over-rules the Ninth Circuit. And the only way to assure that is to fight like hell to get "strict constructionist" judges appointed to any "Bush term" vacancies. Give Justice Brown's writings, I would support her in such an appointment.
The only other alternative is to go ahead and start "Revolutionary War II" and hope our side wins.
~ " --- she is following the law correctly."
"Correctly", only if you regard the 2nd Amendment as an arguable proposition.
It is not arguable, it is a clearly worded right of the people of the US, not to be infringed.
No, correctly in that she had/has no other choice under existing precedent.
She had a choice in the opinion I cited earlier. She refused to support the 2nd Amendment.
You can indulge in all the wishful thinking you want---that isn't going to change the reality of the situation one iota. The ONLY way the situation will change to the position you and I want is if the Supreme Court over-rules the Ninth Circuit. And the only way to assure that is to fight like hell to get "strict constructionist" judges appointed to any "Bush term" vacancies. Give Justice Brown's writings, I would support her in such an appointment.
I doubt she will agree with your position.
I suspect that if we do see a 'Bush Court' rule on the 2nd, they will rule that our individual right can be 'regulated' to exclude possession of any arms society deems reasonable, as per Canada, England & Australia.
Kiss your rights good by.
And if that happens, then the last sentence of my previous post applies. There "is" a limit to what gun-owners in the USA will put up with.
After doing a bit of Google, I found this in a previous thread (The Battle Over Janice Rogers Brown) here on Free Republic:
Janice Brown ping... RKBA proponents should read her opinions in the Nordyke vs Alameda and Great Western vs Los Angeles cases... the best part is the Kasler vs Lockyer case...
"The founding generation certainly viewed bearing arms as an individual right based upon both English common law and natural law, a right logically linked to the natural right of self-defense. Blackstone described self-defense as the “primary law of nature,” which could not be taken away by the law of society."
So it sounds to me like Justice Brown "does" agree with an individual RKBA, despite her ruling in the assault weapon case---upon which California law, Federal law, and precedent left her no choice but to rule as she did.
Sandy, if you're around, could you jump in on this topic for a minute? The question at hand is Janice Rogers Brown judgement in a Cali RKBA case, where she apparantly followed the precedent of the Ninth Circuit while abiding by the Cali Constitution, which has no RKBA in it. Could she contradict the Ninth Circuit and assert an individual RKBA, or would that be way out of bounds? Given that the SCOTUS hasn't ever ruled on the question, seems like it'd be a stretch for a state supreme court judge to jump in, no?
Then I read your post. Let me repeat what you wrote:
Justice Janice Brown Profile:
Part 1: Biography
Part 2: Most Controversial Decision
Part 3: Liberal Civil Rights
Part 4: Conservative Civil Rights
Part 5: Miscellaneous
Regarding your question, I gotta read the thread first.
Here's the decision. Scroll down and read her concurrence. (Weird, she wrote the majority opinion plus a separate concurrence. ) She's obviously very pro 2nd Amendment, imo. Check it out.
That's good to know. Thanks for the links, I'll check em out. Out of all the high profile Bush nominees, she's the one that jumped out at me so far in my research. At 55, she's ripe for the SCOTUS. I really think GWB should get us SCOTUS justices under 60 years old. There is SO MUCH mess to deal with; it's gonna take years.
She's pretty awesome, huh?
She did a damn good job of too. :-}
Yup. She kicks butt if you ask me.
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.