Arsenal seized at Westville house (Connecticut)

New Haven Register ^ | 12-12-01 | William Kaempffer

[slouper]

"police recovered at least four AR-15 assault weapons"

OH MY GOD, THE HUMANITY OF IT! </ sarcasm>

[Sandy]

The 5th Circuit in essense said that, because the individual right to keep and bear arms is so important and fundamental and Constitutionally protected, then gun control laws need to pass a sort of "strict scutiny" test--in other words, the government better have a damned good reason for the law, and gun restrictions need to be limited, narrowly tailored, reasonable, and consistent with the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Emerson lost the appeal because the Court went on to say that the law under which he was being prosecuted nevertheless passed the smell test. IMO, it's comparable to (for instance) a 4th Amendment case where the Court recognizes the significance of the right to be free from unreasonable search/seizure yet goes on to conclude that something like roadblock checkpoints are nevertheless Constitutional.

[William Tell]

Sandy said: "Emerson lost the appeal because the Court went on to say that the law under which he was being prosecuted nevertheless passed the smell test. "

Thanks. "Strict scrutiny" is the term I was trying to come up with.

This makes it sound as if the Supreme Court could agree to take the Emerson case and re-decide the issue of "strict scrutiny". Unfortunately, I think that the Supreme Court has refused to hear appeals regarding Kalifornia "Assault Weapon" laws. Although their refusal is not supposed to indicate an opinion it has the effect of leaving many of us at risk of going to prison.

My selfish viewpoint is that they ought to hear an appeal regarding any law where the compliance rate percentage is thought to be in the single digits. Leaving that law in place is like leaving a fuse burning on a stick of dynamite and hoping that the fuse is long enough that no damage will be done prior to the thing being disarmed by chance, or politics, or divine intervention.

To me, it feels as though the Supreme Court is not doing its job of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution.

[Sandy]

To me, it feels as though the Supreme Court is not doing its job of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution.

Gee, ya think? ;-)

Unfortunately, I think that the Supreme Court has refused to hear appeals regarding Kalifornia "Assault Weapon" laws.

True. But Emerson involves a federal law.

IMO, the most we can hope for right now is that the SC agrees with the 5th Circuit's 2A analysis. Even if they do agree, and even if they clearly lay out some strict scrutiny standards, that'll be be a major victory but hardly definitive. I expect that ultimately they'll uphold the major theme of "gun control for public safety", but here and there they'll strike down various, more specific, things (for instance, methods of keeping guns from felons might be okay, but banning scary-looking weapons might not be okay). It'll turn out to be like every other Constitutionally "protected" right--recognized, but with a bunch of "reasonable" exceptions and a thousand fine-line distinctions.

[William Tell]

Sandy said (of the Supreme Court): 'they'll uphold the major theme of "gun control for public safety" '

I have just about decided that the real problem is firearm serial numbers. If we lose the serial numbers, just about all of the other stuff becomes absolutely unenforceable.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has allowed the unConstitutional Social Security scheme to foist a number on all of us. It has to seem rather tame to insist on a number for a gun when you already have a number attached to every man, woman, and child.

What a mess!

[2nd_Ammendment_Defender]

I have been circulating a petition to John Ashcroft to overrule Gray Davis and the other gun haters in this Nation with the laws they are making to infringe our 2nd Amendment rights. Take a look at it and sign it if you support the right to keep and bear arms in the United States.

http://www.AshcroftPetition@keepandbeararms.com

[Nimitz]

Look fellas, at least you know what your getting with McCain. A scum. The problem is that Bush came to us claiming to be a conservative. While we're mired down with our warm, fuzzy feelings of love for our president, he's slipping it to our wives. The filthy b**tard. A week ago I would have NEVER thought of writing this. I've seen the light. Let's just count how mant times he and Herr Ashcroft stick it us in the future. The tragedy is that it's right under our noses and permanent. God help us.

[betty boop]

Statutes which do infringe rights must pass a different test of "compelling interest". This test requires that the end being sought must be vital to the state, that the statute achieves that end, and that there is no less obtrusive way to achieve that end. This is a difficult test to pass. Poll taxes fail. Poll tests fail. Loyalty oaths fail. Censorship fails. Random searches fail ( except if you are in a car on a road - yuk!).... I think that waiting periods for firearms fail, testing fails, registration fails, taxes on guns and ammo fails, banning plastic handles on rifles fails, banning military look-alikes fails, banning or taxing sawed-off shotguns or machine guns fails, and permits for concealed carry fails.... I believe that these fail the test mostly because they are not effective at achieving any compelling goal.

Thank you, William Tell, for a most helpful analysis. On this basis, I gather that the motions Emerson filed were for rehearing in the Fifth Circuit "en banc." And that's what they were denied on November 30. And since Judge Cummings found for (i.e., dismissed the case against) Emerson in district court; and since the Fifth Circuit reversed Judge Cummings, Emerson's case is now "ripe" for the SCOTUS to step in and "mediate" the dispute. Hence, Emerson's appeal.

I especially appreciated your observation that the rights the Bill of Rights protects are not absolute rights. Certainly capital punishment "infringes" (extinguishes) them all, as you note; and perjury, for example, isn't protected by the First Amendment. Plus I think if a cult of practicing satanists made a habit of kidnapping babies for use in infant sacrifice, they would quickly discover the First Amendment does not guarantee their free exercise of religion. "Rights absolutists" tend to forget that rights are not exercised in a vacuum. The perenniel problem that any constitution must address is how justly to balance and reconcile the living tension between personal autonomy and the public interest. Our Framers designed a Constitution that gives us a system of ordered liberty, not a system of unlimited personal license.

However, having said that, what bothers me about the Emerson case -- though I'm grateful for the Fifth Circuit's elegant and well-reasoned view of the RKBA -- is: What is the compelling state interest in preventing a person from doing a thing he has no inclination to do anyway? A state court had found that Dr. Emerson did not present a danger to anyone. I just don't see the reason for -- or the morality of -- holding a person criminally responsible for mere possession of a firearm, when it seems clear to me that the curtailment of protected individual rights requires a showing that the person intends to use the firearm for an unlawful purpose.

The Family Violence Act seems to assume that a person (usually a man) involved in a routine divorce proceeding is a criminal-just-waiting-to-happen, regardless of the actual threat that person might represent to anyone. What happens to the presumption of innocence under a regime like that? We're no longer talking about "innocent until proven guilty"; we're talking about the "presumption of guilt"; and presumed innocence -- such as a state court jury found in Emerson's case -- is completely irrelevant.

This is positively mediaeval! It's like saying if a person hangs around with a black cat, the person is presumed to be a witch. Mere possession, mere association, is the damning fact.

Well, I digress. Thanks again, William Tell, for your valuable analysis. best wishes, bb.

[William Tell]

betty boop said: "The Family Violence Act seems to assume that a person (usually a man) involved in a routine divorce proceeding is a criminal-just-waiting-to-happen, regardless of the actual threat that person might represent to anyone."

This makes me hopeful regarding Emerson's continuing appeal. It would seem to be reasonable for a court to find that prior restraint is justified based on specific facts. That's what a restraining order is. The Supreme Court should not allow a statute which disarms people based simply on a court proceeding where there is no specific finding that a threat exists.

A really good decision from the Supreme Court could additionally re-state US vs Miller so that the lower courts, including the Ninth Circuit, would no longer be able to make fictional claims about it. If they also made specific reference to that fact that Emerson's Beretta is identical in appearance and function to the military M9 and therefor is protected, this would go a long way toward reversing Kalifornia's ridiculous "evil-looking" gun bans. The guns which have been banned are "evil-looking" because they are "military-looking" and the liberals in Kalifornia equate the military with evil.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

That's the one! Thanks for the help.

[Blood of Tyrants]

A six month investigation for 4 illegal rifles.

And some people don't think the government is out to disarm us all. If I were this guy, I would claim innocence on the grounds that the Connecticut AW ban is unconstitutional and then sue the state for violating my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

[Ban Draoi]

And just how did the morons know what literature this guy had in his house? From reading this, I got the distinct impression that was his main offense.

since when is it the business of the PC crowd what I read?

[Maelstrom]

It is still necessary to demonize and marginalize an individual gun-owner when seizing his weapons and his assests.

It will continue to be necessary until the public has associated the legal ownership of guns with Racism, Nazi-ism, and other philosophically bankrupt groups sometimes known for violent behavior.

This is why it was *said* that he had such literature. Granted, people dedicated to wiping out organizations supporting similar philosophies based on hatred will *also* have such literature, and they will *also* be demonized in the exact same manner should the Jack-Booted Thugs decide they want any firearms from those residences.

[Sandy]

You Are What You Read