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)
That's when the first senator gets plinked.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
The USSC loves to slap down the 9th.
Stay well - Stay safe - stay armed - Yorktown
No, no. The Attorney for VPC (such a emphuism! "Ve Protect Crime!") implied (deliberately) that ANY person who waves a (battle)flag is a racist!
There are many ways this ruling can stand. The US Supreme Court can simply accept the "reasoning" in the Ninth Circuit ruling on the basis of "Common Sense." It is important to remember that the Soviet Constitution under Stalin guaranteed as many "civil liberties" as the American Constitution it was just never enforced.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
The written decision is very interesting. The part where Judge Reinhardt dismisses "keep" as a meaningless throwaway part of the trite phrase "keep and bear" is priceless.
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.