The New York Times
May 6, 2003
Assault Weapons Case May Reach High Court
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 9:34 p.m. ET

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court on Tuesday refused to reconsider its ruling that Americans don't have the constitutional right to own firearms, setting up the possibility of a Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment.

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California's assault weapons ban in a 2-1 ruling last December. On Tuesday, a majority of the circuit's 25 active judges declined to rehear the case.

The 9th Circuit's ruling conflicts with a 2001 decision from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said individuals have a constitutional right to guns. The man who challenged California's weapons ban promised an appeal to the nation's highest court.

``I'll have this filed by the end of the week,'' attorney Gary Gorski said.

California enacted the nation's first assault weapons ban in 1989 after a gunman fired into a Stockton school yard, killing five children. Several states and the federal government later passed similar or more strict bans.

State and federal laws barring assault and other types of weapons are routinely upheld on grounds that they are rational governmental approaches to combat violence. The Second Amendment has had little, if any, impact on those court decisions -- except in the California case.

In dismissing the bulk of Gorski's challenge, the 9th Circuit panel said the Second Amendment was adopted not ``to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession,'' but to allow states to maintain militias.

The decision was written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who noted the Supreme Court's guidance on whether the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms was ``not entirely illuminating.'' The high court, he said, has never directly said whether there is a constitutionally guaranteed right to possess weapons.

Larry Pratt, executive director of the 300,000-member Gun Owners of America, said he wants the Supreme Court to overturn Reinhardt's decision.

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

A spokeswoman for California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said he was ``pleased that the court has upheld this important California law regulating assault weapons.''

The 9th Circuit covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

woohoo! i hope.

Don't forget that the Constitution can legally be amended. If the SCOTUS gets stupid, the majority pro-gun legislation can get 2/3s vote to clarify the Amendment.

I've never understood how anyone could interpret the second as anything other than an individual right.  The Bill of Rights, after all, delineates protections for individuals, not governments.

Exactly marvl.

The structure of the Bill of Rights is designed to protect (not grant) rights by limiting the power of the government.  The rights are seen to be self-evident and God-granted.  The Articles in the Bill of Rights do NOT say, "The government of the United States grants the people the right to free speech, etc.", for what the government giveth, the government can taketh away (sorry about the pidgin King James).

Thus, the intent of the Second Amendment is to protect the right to keep and bear arms by limiting the power of the government to interfere with said right, NOT to "grant" the right to the people.  The right is already there.  Seems pretty simple when you strip away the rhetoric.

There I go again, screwing things up with reason and logic.  Sorry, I just can't help myself.

Why was free speech and RKBA made as amendments and not part of the body of the Constitution?

Isn't EVERYTHING in the Constitution an Amendment?  Anything that is not the amendments is simply the preamble or whatever.

They were added at the same time, to outline the areas that govt. could not interfere.
since the rest of the constitution is about how government is made and works, this is about what they [b] cant [/b] do

Basically, it was believed that these rights were so obviously given by God that there was no need to write them down.  Some of the Founding Fathers insisted that they should be included to settle any doubt.  Therefore, the Bill of Rights.

But the question raised by this headline is, "Is this really the best time to bring this issue up before the SCOTUS?  I doubt it.  The court is, unfortunately, liberal at this time.  They may make a bad ruling that we will then have to live with.

There may be better cases and a better time to go for "the big one".  Perhaps we ought to wait to see if Bush can appoint a couple of conservative judges before going after this one.

It was the only way they could get the Constitution ratified. Some members of the convention, (primarily from the south), would not ratify unless certain rights were enumerated. These guys didn't even trust the govt., before it was even formed!!!

sez to me, the right already exists, and "..SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"... what's so freakin hard to understand about that ???????

Sez who?? Who says we "have to live with" it? Geez painless, you sound like NRA. We've been waiting since the NFA passed for a review, how many GENERATIONS, do we have to wait for "The Right Time"!!
What would be our condition today if our founders at the signing of The Declaration, said, it's not "The Right Time"???

NAW, lets get it on......



Name the case and the time. Bush supports AWB do you think he's gonna appoint a constitutional judge?? gimme a break!!

You see, it really is simple to plain speaking Americans like you and me.

But we don't get to decide what it means.  Ruth Ginsburg gets to decide.  And she probably thinks it means "national guard".  It doesn't matter that she is an idiot.  Since she is a judge, what she thinks is all that matters.

That's why it is sacry to see firearms law go before a liberal SCOTUS.

liberty86  said:

Sorry, old buddy, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one.

Down here in the South, we already tried the "Secession" route and lost.  All my Confederacy bonds are worthless.  Didn't work then, won't work now.

Our best hope is to see a more conservative SCOTUS.  It is possible, but difficult.  There have been names mentioned for future SCOTUS judges that understand what "shall not infringe" means.  We need to work to see them appointed.

Oh, and by the way, "I am the NRA".  And proud of it.

This is a fight between those who wish to preserve the Constitutional Republic and those who wish to fold America into a global govt. in increments..

And those in Govt. who have sold their souls to the highest bidder...simply for staying in power..
imo

BTT!

In my opinion, the court is the only place that our rights will restored.  No(or few) politicians will ever cop to the true meaning of the 2nd ammendment.

Looks like we may not have to wait until September 2004 on the AWB for either positive or negative news.  I'm still writing, emailing and calling my representatives, though.

TS

Dont forget that a 2/3 majority of the STATES must also ratify the amendment for it to become law.  I dunno, if the SCOTUS decides to get stupid, I am leaning towards supporting more "drastic" measures.  

On Edit:
Funny, this is the very reason for the second amendment.

Though, I have faith in the supreme court.

Actually I think it can be some time after they send it to SCOTUS before they hear the arguments and even longer to issue their decision, so it could be tied up for a while, well after Sept 2004.

one of the many things to do with a time machine:

"Hey guys, you really don't need to add that [i]well regulated militia[/i] part...."