05-07-2003, 11:45 AM
| #1 |
| Senior Member   Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Cocoa Florida
Posts: 9,089
|  Americans don't have the constitutional right to own firearms, Supreme Court Ruling Possible on Weapons By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer Published May 6, 2003 0506AP-ASSAULT-WEAPO 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. On the Net: 9th Circuit: http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov |
|  |
|
05-10-2003, 08:30 AM
| #2 |
| HMFIC   | Horse Hockey!!
__________________ Rules | Contributing Members No one has the right to deny my personal safety Please be descriptive in your thread titles! |
|
| |
|
05-10-2003, 09:32 AM
| #3 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Cypress, Texas
Posts: 2,383
| This is the flaming liberal, anti American 9th Circuit court here. Of course they are against individual rights. The Supreme court, on the other hand, has ALWAYS ruled that "the People", in the Bill of Rights, denoted individuals.
__________________ "Gee, Wally, Eddie Haskel's mom puts out!" |
|
| |
|
05-10-2003, 08:02 PM
| #4 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: PDR of IL
Posts: 653
| Just read the original text...it really speaks for itself....If the courts are trying to say we don't have the right then they really are stepping over the line....
__________________ When white man found this land, Indians were running it. No Taxes... No Debt... Plenty Buffalo... Plenty beaver! Women did most of the work. Medicine Man free! Indian men hunted and fished all the time! White man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that. "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. |
|
| |
|
05-12-2003, 10:07 AM
| #5 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Calhoun, Georgia
Posts: 675
| Just look at where this decision came out of, the 9th circuit court is famous (or infamous) for their idiotic decisions. Anybody remember the Newdow "Under God" Pledge Of Allegiance decison...???? That was the 9th circuit court also.
__________________ "You can sleep well at night because rough men are willing to commit violent acts on your behalf" George Orwell |
|
| |
|
05-12-2003, 11:22 AM
| #6 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: East Central Kansas
Posts: 1,762
| According to that interpretation there may be freedom of the press as long as it is a STATE RUN NEWSPAPER, all private news sources exist at the pleasure of the STATE government (with reasonable regulation from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT). And the first amendment only deals with print news sources, all electronic forms of news and entertainment are strictly regulated by the Thought Control Agency for Better Citizens and Subjects.
__________________ Liberty is for those that claim it. |
|
| |
|
05-12-2003, 08:32 PM
| #7 |
| Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Georgia
Posts: 64
| The 9th Circuit Circus at its best. I wonder if dear Mr. Reinhardt realizes that it's not the Supreme Court's job to "interpret" the US Constitution. It was written to mean precisely what it says, not be interpreted to agree with what some judge's opinion is. |
|
| |
Horse Fritters!!! |
05-12-2003, 10:30 PM
| #9 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Cypress, Texas
Posts: 2,383
| Lamb Fries!
__________________ "Gee, Wally, Eddie Haskel's mom puts out!" |
|
| |
