Posted on 12/10/2002 9:54:20 PM PST by Republican_Strategist
Anti-Gunners Expose True Agenda After Ninth Circuit Ruling
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Congressional Bureau Chief
December 09, 2002
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Second Amendment supporters said Monday that so-called "violence prevention" groups have exposed their true agenda in response to a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the right to keep and bear arms.
The Court ruled late last week that the Second Amendment to the Constitution does not, in fact, mean what it says. The Amendment states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
A three-judge panel of the Court said that language does not prohibit the State of California from prohibiting the ownership and possession of certain military-looking semi-automatic rifles, and other firearms with particular cosmetic or functional features. California was the first state to implement such a misnamed "assault weapons" ban in 1989. True assault weapons are fully-automatic or "machine guns."
"The historical record makes it equally plain that the amendment was not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession," wrote Judge Stephen Reinhardt.
"The Amendment protects the people's right to maintain an effective state militia," continued Reinhardt, "and does not establish an individual right to own or possess firearms for personal or other use."
Questionable Research Clouds Decision
But Joe Waldron, executive director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), raised questions about the "research" used to reach that conclusion.
"This ruling even relies on material from Michael Bellesiles, the anti-gun historian whose research has been so discredited that he was forced to resign from Emory University," Waldron noted.
The first footnote in the opinion references Bellesiles' book "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture," which argued that Americans possessed few firearms prior to the Civil War, and those that existed were under strict government control. An independent panel of academic investigators found contained "prima facie evidence of scholarly misconduct." Bellesiles resigned his position at the university, allegedly to avoid being fired.
Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) founder Alan Gottlieb called the ruling "a typically preposterous opinion" from the Court that ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional for containing the phrase "under God."
"Not only does the ruling run counter to extensive research supporting the...individual right to keep and bear arms, it defies logic and a mountain of historic scholarship," Gottlieb argued. "Clearly, the Second Amendment protects an individual right."
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, noted that the Ninth Circuit ignored U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, which found in 1991 that the phrase "the people" is "consistently used in the Bill of Rights to refer to individuals."
"Thus, 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' refers to an individual right," Pratt argued. "In the 36 times the Supreme Court has discussed the Second Amendment it is almost always treated it as an individual right."
Pratt also disputed the Court's claim that the "individual rights" position "had never been adopted by any court," until recent times.
"The Dred Scott decision before the Civil War did just that," Pratt explained, noting that one member of the court, Justice Roger Brooke Taney, wrote that if blacks were permitted to become citizens, "that would mean they could keep and bear arms."
Waldron said the Ninth Circuit's lack of respect for the plain meaning of the Amendment and the precedents set by the Supreme Court is astounding.
"No wonder they rejected the Pledge of Allegiance," Waldron said. "They have no allegiance, to the rule of law, the English language, or for that matter, common sense."
Supreme Court Could Decide the Issue
"The overwhelming majority of American citizens believe that interpretation," Gottlieb said of the "individual rights" view. "Perhaps the time has come for the Supreme Court to finally take up this issue."
Solicitor General Ted Olson, who represents the federal government in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, is only one of the federal executive branch officials who has affirmed the "individual rights" interpretation.
In appellate court filings in two separate cases, Olsen wrote that the "position of the United States...is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engage in active military service or training, to possess their own firearms."
Attorney General John Ashcroft has articulated the same position.
"While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a collective right of the states to maintain militias," Ashcroft wrote in a letter to the National Rifle Association, "I believe the amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise."
But organizations that proclaim their mission as some variation of "preventing violence committed using guns" were quick to praise the ruling and state their agreement with the Court's "collective rights" interpretation.
"The Amendment guarantees the right to be armed only in service to a state-organized militia," said Dennis Henigan, with the Legal Action Project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Matt Nosanchuk, of the Violence Policy Center, was more direct.
"The Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms," he said. "It's not a constitutional right."
Goal Not 'Violence Prevention' but Disarmament
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said Monday that those and other comments expose the true agenda of the so-called "violence prevention" groups. He recalled a recent televised debate with Michael Barnes of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
"You guys opposed the repeal of the D.C. gun ban, both in court and in Congress," Pratt told Barnes.
"Well, that's because we support local control," Barnes replied.
"Then you turn around and pass the Brady Law on the whole country," Pratt reminded Barnes. "Obviously we can't believe you. You want to ban all the guns."
Barnes did not respond. Pratt said Barnes "looked like a deer in the headlights."
"They do support the Brady Law, we know that. And they do support local control, for D.C., we know that" Pratt told CNSNews.com, noting that the nation's capital has, for all practical purposes, a total ban on civilian firearms ownership. "He can't deny everything."
E-mail a news tip to Jeff Johnson.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
FMCDH
When, and if, the Left ever achieve the banning of all firearms in the US, they will wish they hadn't. There will be great civil disobedience, and bloody violence in resistance of confiscation. The greatest hope for the reduction of gun violence is a healthy and respected 2nd. Amendment. Any thing else will be chaos.
"The Amendment guarantees the right to be armed only in service to a state-organized militia," said Dennis Henigan, with the Legal Action Project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Matt Nosanchuk, of the Violence Policy Center, was more direct.
"The Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms," he said. "It's not a constitutional right."
One thing is certain: Jefferson, Madison, et al. could have never envisioned crack, which these gun control lunatics are clearly smoking. Black is White. White is Black. The Second Ammendment does not state what it clearly states. Incredible.
This is not a good thing.
I swear I was about to post the exact same comment. Let's have the civil war now. I want to kill liars and traitors before I'm too old.
The author claimed that he would clarify the errors but that it could take over 10 years to do so.
This is just part of SCOTUS's modus operandi on avoiding 2nd Amendment questions: so long as there is an untried alternative solution to someone's question of gun ownership, they insist it be tried. For that case, the dealer tried to circumvent the ATF's "felon's rights restoration" instead of asking SCOTUS to force ATF to exercise that restoration process; result is that SCOTUS had an "out".
For the case at hand, two second-highest courts are in direct blatant intentional conflict, which MUST be decided upon. Only way for SCOTUS to avoid this one is for the 9th Circuit decision to be considered valid on some point other than the 2nd Amendment rhetoric.
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.