Subject:
|
Re: 2nd Amednment meets the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Dec 2002 17:40:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1565 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> Or:
>
> Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger!
How could I? My handgun has been confiscated by some wacky San Francisco
Judge! ;-)
I have learned my lesson WRT getting all heated up about rulings coming out of
the 9th, although I could live with a ruling that grants the States the power
to decide for themselves.
-John
>
> The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld California's right to ban
> certain types of firearms and place restrictions on them. But the ruling's
> foundation has extremely broad implications. Basically, they keyed on the
> first half of the 2nd amendment, and the comments by Judge Reinhardt were
> extensive, mostly to answer a dissimilar suling by the 5th Circuit Court.
> I'll try to summarize the various points:
>
> The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the existence of effective
> state militias and forbids the federal government to interfere (unstated and
> my comment would be that that might mean that California can ban what it
> wants, and Texas can allow anything, and both would be right).
>
> It was noted that the 2nd Amendment was enacted soon after an uprising of
> farmers in Massachusetts, so the implication is that that was an example of
> an "unregulated" mob of armed individuals that the amendment was intended to
> control (basically "well-regulated" can only be construed to mean a militia
> established and controlled by a government entity).
>
> It was noted that New Hampshire was the only one of the 13 original states
> that proposed an amendment to the Constitution explicitly establishing a
> personal right to possess arms (the implication being that would only be
> necessary if the 2nd Amendment didn't establish a personal right to possess
> arms).
>
> Reinhardt writes, "The historical record makes it plain that the (2nd)
> Amendment was not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with
> respect to private gun ownership or possession."
>
> And the Supreme Court? It's most recent detailed ruling was in 1939, that
> upheld a federal gun control could prohibit transport sawed-off shotguns in
> interstate transport because there was no evidence that such weapons have a
> "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a
> well-regulated militia."
>
> Exiting the summation mode. Well, the gauntlet has definitely been thrown
> down. Knowing the craziness of contraditory rulings and selective citing,
> God only knows where this will lead, but it would seem that the Supreme
> Court will be dragged into this at some point. It would be a safe bet that
> Reinhardt's extensive comments will become the backbone of the
> gun-regulation forces.
>
> -->Bruce<--
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
2 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
