Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Calif. ruling called gun-control landmark
United Press International ^ | 12/6/2002 8:39 AM | National Desk

Posted on 12/06/2002 7:24:08 AM PST by Liberal Classic

SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 6 (UPI) -- A federal appeals court ruling upholding California's ban on assault rifles was being portrayed Friday as a landmark in the constitutional debate over the right to bear arms.

In a 72-page ruling issued Thursday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said the Second Amendment only guarantees the rights of states to organize a militia, and doesn't say anything about citizens being allowed to own semi-automatic weapons or any other firearms.

"With the federal assault weapons ban scheduled to sunset next Congress, the California law stands as one example of how to more effectively restrict these weapons of war," said Matt Nosanchuk, legislative counsel for the Violence Policy Center.

The Ninth Circuit's unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel was at odds with a Fifth Circuit ruling known as the Emerson decision upholding an individual's right to possess a weapon, stating that the Second Amendment pertained to the organization of an organized, state-sponsored militia, and not "an 'unregulated' mob of armed individuals."

"Individual rights advocates have waved the Emerson decision like a battle flag," Nosanchuk said in a statement. "All they have done is awaken a sleeping giant of clear legal thinking and sound historical analysis that finds that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own a gun."

The court agreed, however, that police officers that protect public safety were allowed to own firearms.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the state had no desire to take away the rights of people to hunt or to protect themselves and their homes, however the state was intent on keeping high-powered weapons off the streets.

"While I respect the rights of Californians to pursue hunting and sports-shooting, and of law-abiding citizens to protect their homes and businesses, there is no need for these military-style weapons to be on the streets of our state," Lockyer said.

There was no immediate word as to whether the Justice Department would appeal the ruling or seek a full court review; meanwhile some gun-owners groups concluded the ruling was flawed.

"I don't think the court gets it at all," Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America told the Los Angeles Times. "The court neglected to mention self-defense when discussing legitimate uses of guns."

(Reported by Hil Anderson in Los Angeles)


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; californiarkba
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-139 next last
I've seen one other post on this. This is a different article.

Of course the court neglected self defense. In the eyes of a leftist, there's no such thing. When as the 9th Circuit ever promugated a ruling that made any sense?

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said the Second Amendment only guarantees the rights of states to organize a militia

Newsflash to the 9th Circcuit: Government don't have rights. People have rights. People give government authority to do a limited number of legitimate things.

"Individual rights advocates have waved the Emerson decision like a battle flag," Nosanchuk of the Violence Policy Center.

What's the most widely known battle flag? Maybe the Confederate Battle Flag? Nice way to connect gun ownership with racism there.

1 posted on 12/06/2002 7:24:08 AM PST by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
To quote Charlton Heston "From my cold dead fingers!"
2 posted on 12/06/2002 7:26:18 AM PST by HELLRAISER II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
MWLWN LABE

3 posted on 12/06/2002 7:26:49 AM PST by Joe Brower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
Its an ideological ruling from the Nine Circus clowns. Of course its just like the Sarah Brady anti-gun nuts and the liberal media to wax euphoric over it as though it where a divine decree from Heaven. It ain't nothing of the kind.
4 posted on 12/06/2002 7:28:58 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
Thread Linky:

Ruling: Second Amendment does not provide an individual right to own or possess guns

5 posted on 12/06/2002 7:29:39 AM PST by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
The Ninth Circuit's unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel was at odds with a Fifth Circuit ruling known as the Emerson decision upholding an individual's right to possess a weapon, stating that the Second Amendment pertained to the organization of an organized, state-sponsored militia, and not "an 'unregulated' mob of armed individuals."

"Individual rights advocates have waved the Emerson decision like a battle flag," Nosanchuk said in a statement. "All they have done is awaken a sleeping giant of clear legal thinking and sound historical analysis that finds that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own a gun."

Hey, Nosanchuk - how come you didn't mention the fact that the 9th Circuit has decisions overturned by SCOTUS far more often than any other circuit?

6 posted on 12/06/2002 7:29:57 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

7 posted on 12/06/2002 7:31:09 AM PST by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
A left-wing appeals court rules directly contrary to another more conservative ruling, and the left-wing decision is a "landmark." Then what was the conservative ruling?
8 posted on 12/06/2002 7:31:32 AM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
True, but it will likely prompt appeals. I wonder if we're ready for that going to SCOTUS.
9 posted on 12/06/2002 7:31:45 AM PST by WorkingClassFilth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Left-wing decisions are always "landmark" or "ground breaking." Conservative decisions are always "steps backwards" or "dangerous." Didn't you get the memo? ;)
10 posted on 12/06/2002 7:33:36 AM PST by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth
Yup we are. And this time there is NO WAY the SCOTUS will be able to AVOID ruling exactly what rights the Second Amendment does ENSURE Americans.
11 posted on 12/06/2002 7:35:44 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
"Yup we are. And this time there is NO WAY the SCOTUS will be able to AVOID ruling exactly what rights the Second Amendment does ENSURE Americans."

Excuse my repost from another thread...

"Maybe our collectivist friends feel that conditions are such that forcing a 2nd Amendment decision from the Supreme Court is a now-or-never proposition. With future propects for liberal bench receding, perhaps they feel that they better spend their political capital (and use their FBI files) to get the decision they want - IOW, collective rights."
12 posted on 12/06/2002 7:39:11 AM PST by WorkingClassFilth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
This will not stand.
13 posted on 12/06/2002 7:39:17 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
This must not stand! Please, Someone, appeal this to
the Supreme Court.
14 posted on 12/06/2002 7:42:31 AM PST by upcountryhorseman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
Didn't you get the memo?

I saw it posted in the men's room. I just thought the regular rolled stuff had run out ...

15 posted on 12/06/2002 7:43:59 AM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
In a 72-page ruling issued Thursday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said the Second Amendment only guarantees the rights of states to organize a militia, and doesn't say anything about citizens being allowed to own semi-automatic weapons or any other firearms. ...

... California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the state had no desire to take away the rights of people to hunt or to protect themselves and their homes, however the state was intent on keeping high-powered weapons off the streets.


Okaaayyy...

So there's no right for the citizens to have guns but the government has no desire to take away the rights of citizens to have guns...

If their official decision reads like this, it should be an easy appeal.
16 posted on 12/06/2002 7:51:06 AM PST by pgyanke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
What Attorney General Lockyer is saying is they won't ban handguns for now. But if this Nine Circus joke stands up on appeal to the SCOTUS you can be sure the next step will be to ban all private gun ownership in California.
17 posted on 12/06/2002 7:54:29 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
It's time for the W administration to step up to the plate. No more excuses. Let's settle this now.

It's time for a plain english statement from the highest court in the land affirming the plain truth of the second amendmant.

I won't be holding my breath.
18 posted on 12/06/2002 7:57:27 AM PST by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
.. the next step will be to ban all private gun ownership in California.

Good luck telling that to the street thugs in Oakland and LA... much less decent and god-fearing citizens who believe in the 2nd Amendment.
19 posted on 12/06/2002 7:58:29 AM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
What's the most widely known battle flag? Maybe the Confederate Battle Flag? Nice way to connect gun ownership with racism there.

So you're saying that people who wave a Confederate flag are racists?

20 posted on 12/06/2002 8:00:28 AM PST by A2J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

The 9th Circus Clown Council of Appalling Decisions..

Their Motto - Hey, We'se got an agenda here...We Don;t have to respect the Constitution.
21 posted on 12/06/2002 8:00:42 AM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
SCOTUS would rather clog dance in a mine field than accept this case. The longer they can cloud the idea of Rights held by the People versus Privileges allowed by the Government, the better.

Even if the Plague strikes SCOTUS and Bush replaces all nine, I'm not totally sure Ashcroft wants to go that far. A huge industry hangs in the balance, not to mention local police control of the population.

There are too many thugs with badges who hold with the "Us and Them" world view. The New York, Chicago, DC and LA PDs rely on a helpless population to retain control. They have convinced themselves of the Thin Blue Line myth, and they are not just going to walk away from that power. Certainly the ATF, FBI, INS, Park Service, Air Marshalls, Fish and Game, Poultry Inspectors, and every other Federal wanna-be who carries a gun are not going to be pleased to be out-gunned.

22 posted on 12/06/2002 8:01:31 AM PST by jonascord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
COME AND TAKE IT !!


23 posted on 12/06/2002 8:02:14 AM PST by unixfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A2J
No, I'm saying this is the VPC's way of labelling gun ownership as racist.
24 posted on 12/06/2002 8:02:38 AM PST by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
The court agreed, however, that police officers that protect public safety were allowed to own firearms.

I'm glad that the Second Amendment allows police officers to own firearms. But that leaves a troubling question: How could police officers in other lands, or armies for that matter, possibly have guns if there is no corresponding right to bear arms in those places? Somehow there must be something special about RKBA here in America. I wonder, what could it possibly be?

25 posted on 12/06/2002 8:05:06 AM PST by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
What does the "W administration" have to do with whether the Supreme Court decides to take an appeal on this issue?
26 posted on 12/06/2002 8:05:23 AM PST by GnL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: A2J
Bullseye! Give the man a cigar! It sure worked in South Carolina, Georga, Alabama, and Texas!
27 posted on 12/06/2002 8:06:52 AM PST by jonascord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GnL
What does the "W administration" have to do with whether the Supreme Court decides to take an appeal on this issue?

I believe the "W administration" recently petitioned the SCOTUS not to take up a 2A appeal.

28 posted on 12/06/2002 8:09:54 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GnL
The SCOTUS was considering emerson, but were leaned on by Ashcroft and friends to put it off. The W justice dept put out their worthless statement about individual rights instead of settling the issue.

The justice department can bring this ruling to the SCOTUS.

It is time that they did.
29 posted on 12/06/2002 8:09:59 AM PST by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
Can the plaintiffs of this case appeal to SCOTUS?
30 posted on 12/06/2002 8:13:16 AM PST by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: upcountryhorseman
I suspect that the SC will order a review by the entire 9th Circuit Court. If the morons on the 9th come back with the same answer, the SC will take the case since the 5th and the 9th have ruled exactly opposite of each other.
31 posted on 12/06/2002 8:17:45 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
Can someone education me on just exactly what is considered an "assault rifle" in Californica? I'm not very well versed in guns, but I remember something about it covering a lot of NON auto guns....but I could be mistaken. Just curious.
32 posted on 12/06/2002 8:17:54 AM PST by goodnesswins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
Its very important for the right type of 2nd case to make it up to SCOTUS, if the wrong type gets there it could end up bad for the 2nd, the problem with going to court is that once your there anything can happen, you dont want to run every case you disagree with up there because once SCOTUS rules, you are done, theres no appeal left if they rule against you.
33 posted on 12/06/2002 8:18:05 AM PST by SirFishalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
education = educate.....more COFFEE...NOW!
34 posted on 12/06/2002 8:18:19 AM PST by goodnesswins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SirFishalot
Oh, there's still an appeal.
Just not the kind they'd want to see.
35 posted on 12/06/2002 8:21:05 AM PST by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
Im not very well versed in guns, but I remember something about it covering a lot of NON auto guns....,p> It has absolutely nothing to do with automatic guns. The law covers only semi-autos that look scary and hold more than 10 rounds. They had to be registered by a certain date or they became "illegal" to own in Kali. If you dont register it, you are a felon.
36 posted on 12/06/2002 8:21:31 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: FreeTally
Emerson a poor test case. Dr. Emerson was not the most innocent of victims. Here, where the state arbitrarily confiscated firearms stating that the citizens had no RKBA is a MUCH better case.
38 posted on 12/06/2002 8:25:14 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: A tall man in a cowboy hat
Ahhhh... but but but my friend, liberals see the Constitution as an elastic, living document. They feel it means whatever liberal judges read it to mean.
39 posted on 12/06/2002 8:26:24 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Paging the good Esquire for some cert. or en banc review and constitutional opinions....
40 posted on 12/06/2002 8:28:13 AM PST by eureka!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
"In a 72-page ruling issued Thursday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said the Second Amendment only guarantees the rights of states to organize a militia, and ***doesn't say anything about citizens being allowed to own semi-automatic weapons or any other firearms.***"


Okay, I'll bite... Ever heard of the 10th Amendment?
41 posted on 12/06/2002 8:28:43 AM PST by pgyanke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
If it LOOKS like a nine year old girl's idea of an "assault rifle" it is. Bayonet lugs, pistol grips, detachable magazines, flash suppressors, recoil compensators, dark colors, non-reflective finishes, black cats, witch's marks, a hooting owl, possession of the Host, dancing naked in the moonlight, are all indicators of evil intent, and communion with the NRA. You have your subscription to the New Republic revoked, and are burned at the stake.
42 posted on 12/06/2002 8:28:58 AM PST by jonascord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
I agree, this is a better case.
43 posted on 12/06/2002 8:29:05 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
www.jpfo.org
44 posted on 12/06/2002 8:29:50 AM PST by society-by-contract
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
BTTT
45 posted on 12/06/2002 8:30:37 AM PST by Fiddlstix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
Isn't this the same collection of nitwits who said the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional?

Isn't there some way to purge the courts of idiots like this??
46 posted on 12/06/2002 8:30:50 AM PST by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
I also agree, this is a much better case for SCOTUS.
47 posted on 12/06/2002 8:34:13 AM PST by SirFishalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
Isn't this the same Liberal court that ruled with that doctor to remove "Under God" out of the Pledge?
48 posted on 12/06/2002 8:36:09 AM PST by NRA2BFree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
Emerson was convicted of violating a section of the U.S. Code, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) and was prosecuted in Federal court by a U.S. attorney, hence the Justice Department's involvement.

This 9th circuit case, Silveira v. Lockyer, involved private plaintiffs challenging a state law (hence AG Lockyer as the defendant) on federal grounds. Now that plaintiffs have lost their appeal, how does the Justice Dept step in and appeal it to SCOTUS? The Justice Dept was never involved.

49 posted on 12/06/2002 8:37:47 AM PST by GnL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ZULU; Noumenon
It is almost time.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

50 posted on 12/06/2002 8:40:48 AM PST by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-139 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson