posted on December 6, 2002 12:35:46 AM new
The NRA will soon be in full retreat on the "individual" right claims when it comes to firearm possession. As I said in a post about this subject a year ago, the NRA had better drop the individual right position and settle for and work towards regional "victories" for gun possession in the states.
posted on December 6, 2002 06:58:26 AM new
Total "BS" from the land of fruits and nuts.
The NRA WILL NEVER stop in their efforts to defend the public's right to own firearms.
More propaganda for the uninformed, ultra liberal anti gunners.
In 1989, anti-gun groups placed most of their efforts to ban handguns on hold, temporarily, to pursue a new legislative target of opportunity. The previous year, Josh Sugarmann, leader of a fringe group now called the Violence Policy Center (VPC), known and often rebuked for its irrational positions on firearm issues (see www.nraila.org/research/19990729-RighttoCarry-001.html), had argued to fellow activists that "(T)he issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press and public" and that anti-gun groups needed "a new topic in what has become to the press and public an 'old debate.'" Sugarmann then suggested that "Efforts to restrict assault weapons are more likely to succeed than those to restrict handguns" because of the appearance. "The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." (Emphasis in the original, "Assault Weapons in America," A Joint Project of the Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence and The New Right Watch, pp. 26-27.)
posted on December 6, 2002 07:26:31 AM new
Specious hopes displayed there when this is the regional small victory of which you speak, reamond. Are things so desperate that the single opinion of a member of the always controversial ninth circuit brings such a joyous reaction?
Meanwhile, in contrast to the lowered crime rates in every right to carry state in the union, California experiences yet another record breaking rise in murder, robbery, and other crimes against persons (presumably unprotected):
http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/5472040p-6455932c.html, which report ran on the same front page of the "bee".
The San Mateo Co. Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday [12-4] to adopt an ordinance banning guns on country property - a move that reinstates a county law that was declared unconstitutional in 1997.
The paragraph I loved the most was the one that stated:
Nevin said the ordinance voted on Tuesday stood on firmer legal footing than its predecessor because it did not prohibit gun shows, which could be considered political assemblies, but instead made the possession of guns on county land illegal. So....people can still have gun shows they just can't bring any guns? LOL
posted on December 6, 2002 08:51:23 AM new
Watch this case closely. Let's see if the NRA will support an appeal to the US Supreme Court.
As I outlined once before, the NRA's best legal position to take on the 2nd Amend is that it is NOT a Constitutional individual right and other than the issue of state militias, firearms are a matter for the states to regulate.
If the US Supreme Court considers the 2nd Amend an individual right, whatever they find are the limitations of that right will be the law of the entire US. It will also impact EVERY state and federal firearm possession prosecution/conviction past and present, this includes those currently in prison, and those wishing to expunge their record. As the article stated, thousands of appeals were filed merely due to Ashcroft taking an official position that firearm possession is an individual right. It will also cause every federal firearm law to come under new Constitutional scrutiny.
The real dilemma is for the "conservative" states rights judges on the US Supreme Court. They are loathe to grant any new individual Constitutional rights. They would prefer to leave the matter up to the states and pronounce that no Constitutional individual right exists.
The US Supreme Court can 1. Refuse to hear the case and let the Circuit ruling stand there-by forstalling a definitive ruling; or 2. Hear the case and find either it is an individual right or not and leave it up to the states to do whatever they want.
My bet- The US Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case and forstall a definitive ruling. Close second, they will hear the case and rule it is not an individual right of the same importance as free speech or due process, creating new new genre of individual right that will satisfy neither side- but the NRA/gun owners have much more to lose if this happens.
What they will not do is rule that firearm possession is a Constitutionally guaranteed individual right. That would throw the criminal justice system into choas nationwide costing billions for wrongful imprisonment and property confiscation, as well as create a political regional uproar between urban and rural constituencies. Gun regulations that work well in Wyoming do not work well in New York City, but both places would be under the same Constitutional scrutiny for regulating firearms.
posted on December 6, 2002 02:37:35 PM new
Linda K
Being that this happening in California it isn't supprising.
Several years ago here in Texas, the City of Houston passed an ordance banning gun shows on city property.
The two major gun show promoters united, filed a law suite against the City of Houston for the ordance.
While the suite was pending, the shows were moved to outlying county locations.
It took some time but the Texas Suprime court ruled against the City of Houston. Forced them to repeal the ordance, pay the promoters attorney's legal fees & several hunded thousand dollars in lost revenue.
Now we average 2 gun shows per month inside the city limits and 1 show on county property.
Texas does have a concealed carry permit that allows gun owners to carry a concealed weapon .
There are still places where firearms are not allowed to be carried, such as county facilities (courthouses) & "etc", banks, bars & other places.
