9th Circuit Rules Individuals Have No Right to Bear Arms

SFGate.com (AP) ^ | May 6, 2003 | David Kravets

[Plainsman]

A divided federal appeals court on Tuesday declined to reconsider its December ruling that the Second Amendment affords Americans no personal right to own firearms.

The December decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California's law banning certain assault weapons and revived the national gun ownership debate. With Tuesday's action, the nation's largest federal appeals court cleared the way for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never squarely ruled on the issue.

[Redcloak]

Links to the dissenting opinions are here...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/906659/posts

[RightWhale]

Amazing.

[martin_fierro]

9th Cir.? Fooey.

Countdown to reversal by USSC.

[ChemistCat]

The Second Amendment's "Doomsday Scenario" value died when the federal government first began to own and use weapons that private citizens could not legally own or use.

So now we private citizens may either own weapons to defend ourselves against one another, or we may not, but let's not pretend that the ability to resist our government is on the table anymore. It's just not. There is no way the population of this country could resist whomever is in control of the military, if the military will go along with it.

The Branch Davidians proved I'm right.

[American Soldier]

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed, where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest, where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees," Kozinski wrote in papers released Tuesday.

Remarkably bold and clear. I don't mention this in public...but he's right.

[samuel_adams_us]

SCOTUS will slap these f...ers silly with this one. So how many communists in favor of the destruction of the US Government are members of the 9th?

[anniegetyourgun]

Nothing but court jesters, the 9th circuit.

[tet68]

The tyranny of the liberal courts knows no bounds.

One only need consider what that really means.
If the SC sides with the 9th, the time of questioning,
as Claire Wolf says, is over.

[blackdog]

Only Seann Penn and judges have the right to bear arms in California.

Exactly to whom or what have the 9th court sworn oath's to? It sure can't be the United States or our constitution.

[Nachoman]

Well, I guess that settles it. I'm glad I threw all my guns in the lake when Rosie said I was a bad man.

[colorado tanker]

The Ninth Circuit, the most reversed Circuit, is so discredited at SCOTUS that this probably helps the cause. Kozinski is well respected by the Court's conservatives, too.

[RAT Patrol]

PING

I thought this might interest you.

[ChemistCat]

He's right, but it no longer works. At the time when it was written, there was little the Federal government could own that private citizens and states couldn't match or overmatch.

The reason they can interpret the Second Amendment in this false, distorted way is simply that there is nothing US citizens CAN do if the government refuses to stand down following being voted out of power. And let's all of us raise our hands if we thought Clinton entertained that possibility. I'm SURE he did. Had 9/11 happened between November 2000 and January 2001, you know he would have.

[Joe Brower]

I am compiling a list of FreeRepublic folks who are interested in RKBA topics. If you want off my ping-list, just let me know.

Conversely, FReepmail me if you want to be added.

And my apologies for any redundant pings.

[samuel_adams_us]

Clinton wouldn't have survived a third term had he appointed himself king. With all the people taking aim at him he was lucky to survive the first two terms.

[Jesse]

"The Branch Davidians proved I'm right."

You must be one of them "gubmint edicated publik srkewl graduites", am I right?

[samuel_adams_us]

The funny thing about Waco is that the government could have arrested their leader in town many times but chose to make a big media event out of it.

[VRWCmember]

The court's decision -- which said weapons were properly allowed for the states to maintain militias -- conflicts with a 2001 decision from the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said individuals had a constitutional right to guns.

This SHOULD be a very easy question to settle: Does the 2nd amendment say "... the right of the states to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", or does it say "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Is there ANY instance in the Constitution or Bill of Rights in which the language or context even remotely suggests that the phrase "right of the people" is intended to mean "right of the states"?

[ChemistCat]

Sure am.

My mother taught me some manners, too.