|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
'Landmark' Ruling Attacks Right to Bear Arms NewsMax.com Wires and NewsMax.comSAN FRANCISCO – A federal appeals court ruling upholding California's ban on assault rifles was being portrayed Friday as a landmark in the constitutional debate over the right to bear arms. In a 72-page ruling issued Thursday, the famously left-leaning Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said the Second Amendment guaranteed only the rights of states to organize a militia and said nothing about citizens being allowed to own semi-automatic weapons or any other firearms. "With the federal assault weapons ban scheduled to sunset next Congress, the California law stands as one example of how to more effectively restrict these weapons of war," said Matt Nosanchuk, legislative counsel for Violence Policy Center.
'Mob of Armed Individuals'
The Ninth Circuit's unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel was at odds with a Fifth Circuit ruling known as the Emerson decision upholding an individual's right to possess a weapon, stating that the Second Amendment pertained to the organization of an organized, state-sponsored militia, and not "an 'unregulated' mob of armed individuals." "Individual rights advocates have waved the Emerson decision like a battle flag," Nosanchuk said in a statement. "All they have done is awaken a sleeping giant of clear legal thinking and sound historical analysis that finds that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own a gun."
San Francisco 3 Give Cops Permission to Have Guns
The court agreed, however, that police officers who protect public safety were allowed to own firearms. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the state had no desire to take away the rights of people to hunt or to protect themselves and their homes, but the state was intent on keeping high-powered weapons off the streets. "While I respect the rights of Californians to pursue hunting and sports-shooting, and of law-abiding citizens to protect their homes and businesses, there is no need for these military-style weapons to be on the streets of our state," Lockyer said. There was no immediate word as to whether the Department of Justice would appeal the ruling or seek a full court review.
'Failed to Even Mention Self Defense'
Gun rights groups denounced the ruling. "I don't think the court gets it at all," said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. He wrote to NewsMax.com: "Their ruling did not get anything right. "In listing the legitimate uses of firearms, the Court failed to even mention self defense. They overlooked the fact that Korean merchants used some of the now banned guns to successfully defend their stores during the Los Angeles riots. ... "The Court completely missed the long history of Supreme Court decisions upholding Federal supremacy in cases brought by states challenging Federal control of the militia. Had the Court looked at this body of cases, they would have seen that their position of a state’s right to have a militia would mean that the 2nd Amendment nullifies the clause in Article I Section 8 establishing Federal supremacy over the militia." Pratt expressed hope "the Supreme Court will keep with its own precedents and throw the Ninth Circuit’s rewrite of the Constitution into the wastebasket where it belongs."
Copyright 2002 by United Press International. All rights reserved.
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Editor's note:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2008 NewsMax.Com |