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.

[RightWhale]

I think the 9th rules here, too, but Murkowski is trying to split us off. The 9th is so far out of step they are marching up their own backsides. This is the kind of thing Clintons actually do, it's how they get their real work done.

[samuel_adams_us]

Of course not but if you are communist that's what you want it to say.

[Travis McGee]

The Branch Davidians proved nothing more than that a hundred religious zealots in a plywood building were not fire proof. Nothing more.

We have not yet seen a test of what happens when millions of scoped deer rifle toting citizens refuse to roll over to a tyranny. That day may yet come.

[jdogbearhunter]

Please count me in, sir.

[Travis McGee]

"Awkward time" bump.

[FreedomCalls]

Countdown to reversal by USSC.

And if they don't reverse it? Don't count your chickens before they are hatched. My count is 6-3 to uphold it.

[TexanToTheCore]

"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." Well, they finally up and did it. They stopped nibbling around the edges and stated their agenda in clear terms, a mistake at this point in history.

Who shall write the majority opinion?

Scalia? Thomas?

Scalia? Thomas?

Who can produce enough rhetorical heat to blister the ninth courts behinds?

[ChemistCat]

Now, were you criticizing my English or my argument?

Do you believe that you can own weapons that will enable you to fight back against your government and win? Overthrow your government, if it should throw what little remains of the Constitution away for the sake of "security" or "tourism" or whatever the cause of the day might be?

I do wish I could give you an unlimited weapons budget and plenty of time to dig in. It would be very entertaining to watch.

[El Gato]

9th Cir.? Fooey.

Since the 9th is the most reversed of the circuits, this is a good thing. What's bad is that it concerns a state law, not the federal one. It would be better to get the 2nd affirmed as protecting an individual right first, and then later decide if it's protection extends to state governmental actions.

OTOH, if it's overturned, on 2nd amendment grounds, inside of few years there won't be a gun control law in the country other than those applying to convicted criminals.

[spodefly]

Behold the Idiocy of the Gun-Grabbing Chimp.

1. "the people" in the First Amendment means *the people*;
2. "the people" in the Fourth Amendment means *the people*;
3. "the people" in the Ninth Amendment means, *the people*;
4. ...but "the people" in the Second Amendment (ratified in 1787) means the National Guard (which was created by an Act of Congress in 1917).

http://www.attrition.org/technical/firearms/chimp.html

[Valpal1]

Seems to me that it is time for a movement to impeach and remove these idjits from the bench.

It is time for some in your face grassroots political hardball.

So what is the process for citizenry to remove these digraces to the bench?

[Eastbound]

"Awkward time" bump."

I think if this goes to the USSC, they will take their lead on what congress and the executive branch does with the assault weapon ban which will be on the front burner for renewal or sunset just before election next year.

[El Gato]

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.

Then why are the policritters so darned afraid of .50 BMG long range rifles? Besides, in the scenario you propose you would have to factor in the fact that so many of those "loathed" by the Clintons, returned the sentiment. More than a few of those would have remembered that the Constitution requires a President to step down at noon on January 20th, following an election and also have remembered their oath to support and defend that Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic

[Ichneumon]

[joesnuffy]

the second doesnt apply to a collective right any more than the first does

[Shooter 2.5]

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.

Our enemy isn't the military.

[colorado tanker]

ROTFLOL!!!

[ChefKeith]

9th Circus

[ChemistCat]

Of course not. Read what I said. IF the military goes along with it. That is the IF upon which our hopes hinge now, not the Second Amendment.

Saddam's military was made of Iraqis and they consented to what he did to his country. God help us if our military ever consents to a President the likes of the 9th Circuit Court.

[joesnuffy]

Attorney General John Ashcroft has said he believes the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to bear arms, but that the right is not absolute.

Ashcroft left himself some wiggle room....he really should allow SCOTUS to decide what the meaning of "the people" really is...at least before the hildabeast or one like her is the sitting POTUS (God Forbid)

[RightWhale]

if this goes to the USSC, they will take their lead

They aren't supposed to take their lead from anyone. They are supposed to rule on legal matters pertaining to the Constitution: not test the political weather; not see which way the wind is blowing; not check with the traffic reporter.

[martin_fierro]

I spoke with Michael Ramirez once. Funny, funny guy. Nice, too.

[ChemistCat]

I have to add, by the way, that it is my belief that we already have a goverment in rebellion against the people. We elected a Republican President and a Republican Majority--yet we have a minority Senate that cannot and will not consent to the legal appointment of qualified judges, as outlined in the Constitution, and are using extra-Constitutional means to prevent that function of government from happening.

The ballot box didn't work in this matter. An elite minority is controlling one vital process of government, and getting away with it. You can see in every move they make, attempts by the Democrats to extend this control to other areas. It will take a super-majority of Republicans, next election, to get the conservative judges appointed who should be assuming their duties now!

[Wonder Warthog]

"He's right, but it no longer works."

WRONG. It absolutely still works. The politicians live in absolute terror of armed citizens--that is why they are trying so hard to completely eliminate the RKBA.

It is true that the citizens collectively probably cannot resist the army in open combat, but if the politicians get too tyrranical, they (policitians) CAN still feel the wrath of the people---THAT is the real reason that there is such a big push to outlaw .50BMG rifles.

[Radioactive]

The 9th circuit is the most overturned court in the nation.

I think these fools will go down in history as the biggest group of enemies of the Constitution that has ever been assembled.

[Mulder]

"If Judge Reinhardt prevails, the American people could become subjects of the government," Pratt said.

Or the gov't could become 'subjects'.

[Drammach]

....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.

That's the key, isn't it? Whether the military will go along with totalitarian rule..
I won't say it will never happen, but I find it very unlikely.

As example, I present two Eastern European nations.
Russia
Romania
Both nations were faced down by essentially "unarmed" citizens, who armed themselves by overpowering local police and military.
In essence, it was the military and police that finally succumbed to the will of the people, rather than murder their own friends and family.
It is the willingness of the soldier to murder his own mother that comes into play.

You are wrong.
We, the people ALWAYS have the option of non-compliance, resistance.
We just need the will to make the sacrifice.

The only question is, where is that line, and when do we cross it.

[Ichneumon]

In originally dismissing the bulk of Gorski's challenge, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based appeals court, ruled 2-1 that the Second Amendment was not adopted "to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession."

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

--Tench Coxe (1755-1824), writing as "A Pennsylvanian," in "Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution," in the _Philadelphia Federal Gazette,_ June 18, 1789, p.2 col.1

What part of "their private arms" do you suppose the 9th Circuit is having trouble understanding?

Note: Coxe was one of the Pennsylvania delegates to the Constitutional Convention. The passage above is from his published summaries of the proposed amendments which were to become the Bill of Rights. His summaries were very widely published and were *the* most read commentaries on the proposed amendments during the ratification debates. When the states ratified the Bill of Rights, *this* is what they understood they were agreeing to.

Furthermore, James Madison (who *wrote* the Bill of Rights draft) wrote Coxe a letter specifically thanking him for his summaries, which very strong implies that Madison had no disagreement with Coxe's description of it (or else Madison would have mentioned the misunderstanding).

If one example isn't enough, how about two?

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."

--Samuel Adams (1722-1803), in Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, pp.86-87, also in Philadelphia_Independent Gazetteer,_ August 20, 1789 (Pierce &

Don't ever believe the anti-gunners' lie that the "individual right" interpretation of the Second Amendment is only a "modern" reinterpretation foisted by the dishonest NRA...

[colorado tanker]

The collective rights argument is really silly, isn't it? Consider also the Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, clealy understood to affirm individual rights as a means of attracting votes to approve the Constitution. It's ridiculous to think that the second of those "Rights" was not conferred on the citizens, but on the government, when the government already had the "right" to arm the Army and Navy, including their reserves or "militias," in the original Constitution! No "collective rights" advocate has ever explained what authority the Second Amendment gave the government that it didn't already have in the Constitution, meaning the argument relies on the theory that Madison and his cohorts wrote a provision into the Constitution that has no meaning whatsoever, which reveals the absurdity of the position.

[Henrietta]

"The Branch Davidians proved I'm right."

Sorry ChemKitty, I don't agree! The Davidians were a small group of people, and most of them were not trained in the use of arms. If the 20 million gun owners in this country decided to put down a tyrannical government, I have no doubt that between the 20 million of us, we'd have no problem. If that weren't the case, the government would just take our guns by force outright, instead of by sneaky, incremental legislation.

The government can't fight all of us. We've got 'em outnumbered.