posted on December 6, 2002 12:51:50 PM new
I just heard on CNN that the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had just interpreted the Fourth Amendment to mean that US Citizens were to form millias, not to arm the citizens. This is in response to California's ban on assualt rifles.
AMERICANS: You have just had your Right to Bare Arms taken away from you!
posted on December 6, 2002 01:05:45 PM new
That's pretty spooky. I live in California, and although I don't own any weapons, I always want the right to choose.
Who stirred up the court to give that opinion, anyway?
We'll have to see how this plays out.
ferncrestmotel
posted on December 6, 2002 01:56:36 PM new
It will be interesting to see what other rights can be interpreted to only be exercised by the people validly for the benefit of the state........
posted on December 6, 2002 02:07:58 PM new
My question to Republicans is: Why isn't Bush openly denoucing this on TV like he has with other Court announcements on other important issues? Why is Bush silent? Is he giving his approval of this? Is this MORAL? Is this how Conservatives DEFEND the US Constituion, by destroying it? If Bush is so Gung-Ho and the Republicans in Congress so Gung-Ho on preserving the Constittuion, why hasn't a single one made a single peep about it?
I'll bet it's because they are APPLAUDING this! *THAT's* your so-called "conservatives" in Washington!
posted on December 6, 2002 02:19:31 PM new
Isn't US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the west coast? It isn't the US Supreme Court, where the appeal to this ruling will be sent next.
I have know people that moved out of California because of the irrational standards placed on the citizens.
I'm glad I don't live in the socialist republic of Kalifornia.
posted on December 6, 2002 03:01:16 PM new
Borillar..
Could it be the President Bush is a little preoccupied at the moment with Iraq's pending release of their list of WoMD & his firing of
O'Neill and Lindsey
posted on December 6, 2002 03:49:36 PM new
Borillar- How does a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons equate to removing the right to bear arms? Despite the interpretation, do you really think that hand guns and other single shot rifles will be affected? Your point about the Bush response, however, is well taken!
posted on December 6, 2002 04:07:27 PM new
Bear, Bush has been busy before (I'll refrain from smart answers to that!) and it hasn't stopped hii from getting onto the camera and denouncing court rulings. If he and the Republican Party are truely and honestly full of REAL conservatives and they are out to protect our right to bare arms, then if not Bush then what about Trent Lott or the other big-shots of the GOP? In the past, when the court ruled against an agenda held by corporations, Bush and Lott and the rest were out there PRONTO -- even after 9-11 and in the middle of bombing Afghanistan and Al-Queda!
On this one, they are silent. It has only been a few hours, but we'll see within the next twenty-four hours how it all goes.
posted on December 6, 2002 04:23:37 PM new
>Borillar- How does a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons equate to removing the right to bear arms?
So far, the analysis of the judge's ruling is that the SOLE purpose of the Second, not the Fourth as I stated in the thread title (opps!), is that the citizens should be armed ONLY for the purposes of a state millitia! Period!
That implies that there is no Right to Bear Arms. Also Period. It implies it because IF the ONLY Right is the Right to bear arms while particpating in the State's defense, then that leaves no room for other reasons that we have enjoyed up until now.
The problem is that for duly authorized state millitias to be armed, the state provides the arms; hence, no citizen need be relied upon to provide their own. Therefore, there is Right for citizens to own arms, because the State provides what is necessary.
When this country was founded, the federal government was dirt poor and they relied upon citizens to provide what was necessary for a well-regulated millitia. That's not the case nowadays. And this new ruling goes out of it's way to state those facts.
Yet, scholars of American History and the Constitution have argued that the part about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" was not a temporary solution to a budget crisis, but a means whereby citizens could help guarantee themselves the right to be free from the government's desire to control all things and everyone at all times. For surely, the founders of our nation were not trying to throw off the yoke of one form of slavery from abroad, only to replace it with another dictatorship here at home! And only with an unarmed populus can Tyranny succeed.
The Traditional Conservatives have fought and died for this principle so that we could enjoy it today. But that requires that we pick up the torch and carry it along to the next generation, through adversity, occasionally requiring sacrifices in the blood of Patriots.
To contrast, these "New" Conservatives should applaud this ruling, for weakening our protections FROM the intrusions by Government and Religion is their goal.
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 09:33:26 PM new
Borillar,
You could start by getting the amendment right. It's the second not the fourth that's addressed here.
Anyhow this is no victory for anti-gunners or anyone else really. The 9th Circuit had already made that ruling in 1996; there was no other ruling that this latest 3 judge panel could make. Only the Supreme Court or the full 9th Circuit Court could change the prior ruling.
The 9th Circuit is the most liberal in the country, they are also the most overturned court in the country, and Judge Reinhardt is the most liberal judge on the panel. This little ruling isn't much more than a public and personal expression of views by an opportunistic partial court.
Remember that in May, the 5th Circuit Court (New Orleans) ruled that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms for legitimate purposes. In addition, the Justice Department via Attorney General Ashcroft supported the decision.
posted on December 6, 2002 11:38:46 PM new
>You could start by getting the amendment right. It's the second not the fourth that's addressed here.
You could start by reading the posts in this thread, KRS. I've already stated a correction earlier today. I was in a hurry to post the info on here, and since so many of the Amendments are under attack, almost daily it seems anymore, it slipped me to double-check my info.
>Only the Supreme Court or the full 9th Circuit Court could change the prior ruling.
According to CNN, it WAS the Full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ergo, that's why it was in the news.
posted on December 7, 2002 05:24:12 AM new
I think in a 20 year frame of time it won't matter because we are at a point where firearms are a mature technology and a hand gun or most rifles are really not useful for producing enough danger to alter the course of a government. If the citizens in a future action sweep away government control it will depend on technologies of exotic nature that multipyly force far more than a firearm. Gene engineered bio weapons and such things as a miniature cruise missile are close to being within the grasp of garage construction.
posted on December 7, 2002 10:33:26 AM new
Ergo my previous statement: "If you are going to have a revolution, be sure to get the millitary on your side first."
posted on December 7, 2002 11:23:26 AM new
uuuhh, maybe the idea of having guns is not a good idea anymore....
Texan Killed Friend Who Drank Last Cold Beer
Dec 6, 10:15 am ET
BANDERA, Texas (Reuters) - A jury on Thursday handed a life prison sentence to a Texas man who shot and killed a longtime friend he accused of drinking the last beer in his refrigerator.
Jurors deliberated for less than two hours before passing the sentence on Steven Brasher, 42, for the murder of Willie Lawson, 39, on Nov. 5 last year.
"There was only two beers left, so I took one, and I told Willie not to take my last beer," Brasher said in a taped statement that was played during the trial.
Testimony showed Brasher shot Lawson in the head with a pistol after the two began arguing over the missing beer. Brasher maintained the shooting was an accident.
-------------------------------------------
.................................................
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
posted on December 7, 2002 11:56:18 AM new
mlecher
You just don't take a Texans LAST COLD BEER. Very BAD manners.
Just goes to show that alcohol & guns, automobles & good sense don't mix.
But back to the original topic:
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, written by one of the judges who
declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional in June, seems to go against two
centuries of popular thinking and is contrary to assertions from the National Rifle
Association, scholars, politicians and others that individuals do have the right to bear
arms.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said the court's ruling upholding California's assault
weapons ban "is clear confirmation that the government has the ability to place common-sense regulations on firearms."
[ edited by bear1949 on Dec 7, 2002 11:59 AM ]
[ edited by bear1949 on Dec 7, 2002 12:06 PM ]
posted on December 7, 2002 12:02:43 PM new
Yes Bear, taking the last cold beer is admittedly very bad manners, but Emily Post especially frowns on the "shoot-to-kill" punishment. Maybe just wound the culprit.....
And you have to realize, the neo-cons are in power now, the guns have got to go before they can really implement their plan of world domination <insert evil laugh here>
.................................................
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
posted on December 7, 2002 12:56:27 PM new
Borillar,
"According to CNN, it WAS the Full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ergo, that's why it was in the news".
Though it would have been in the news no matter what, the link provided by you during edit in your still uncorrected first post contains the phrase:
"Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the three-judge panel" which clearly shows that this ruling was not rendered by the full court.
posted on December 7, 2002 02:21:08 PM new
However, we still haven't heard from Bush or the White House omn the matter, nor any Republican in office for that matter. Maybe they ENJOY having Americans disarmed?
