Kindgo
Advanced Member
Member # 2
|
posted
"Individuals have no right to bear arms"
Federal appeals court upholds Calif assault weapons ban
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer
Published 5:00 p.m. PST Thursday, December 5, 2002
http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/st...p-6455930c.html
SAN FRANCISCO(AP) - A federal appeals court has unanimously upheld California's ban on assault weapons, saying individuals have no right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.
"The historical record makes it equally plain that the amendment was not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Weapons owners challenged 1999 amendments to the 1989 law that originally outlawed 75 high-powered weapons that have rapid-fire capabilities. The Legislature passed the nation's first law banning such weapons after a gunman, Patrick Purdy, fired a semiautomatic weapon into a Stockton school yard, killing five children and injuring 30.
Following California's lead, several states and the federal government passed similar or even stricter bans.
In 1999, the California Legislature redrafted the law to ban copycat weapons with similar features to the banned weapons.
Lawmakers adopted a provision that bans assault weapons based on a host of features instead of makes and models - a move that made illegal hundreds of so-called copycat weapons not clearly defined in the law.
"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 in our state," said Bill Lockyer, California's attorney general.
The National Rifle Association said it was disappointed with the ruling.
"From an organizational standpoint, for 131 years we've been standing steadfastly to protect the freedoms of all law abiding Americans and stand steadfastly that the Second Amendment is an individual right and will continue to do so," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam.
He said "it was too early to tell" what ramification, if any, the court's decision would have and whether the decision would usher in calls for a fresh wave of gun control laws.
Attorneys for the suing gun owners did not return telephone calls seeking comment on whether they would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In its Thursday decision, the San Francisco-based appeals court ruled 3-0 that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to maintain effective state militias.
"The amendment's operating clause establishes that this objective was to be obtained by preserving the right of the people to 'bear arms' - to carry weapons in conjunction with their service in the militia," Reinhardt wrote.
The interpretation conflicts with U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, who told the National Rifle Association that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms. Following the publication of Ashcroft's letter to the NRA and other Ashcroft statements, a flood of criminal defendants petitioned federal judges to vacate their weapons convictions.
Judges, however, balked at the petitions and upheld the laws prohibiting felons from possessing firearms and other gun prohibitions. Many of those cases are on appeal.
The appeals panel noted that the U.S. Supreme Court's guidance on whether the Second Amendment offers individuals the right to bear arms was "not entirely illuminating."
In 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal law prohibiting the interstate transport of sawed-off shotguns. The Supreme Court found that the weapon in question was not suitable for use in the militia and therefore not constitutionally protected.
The case is Silveira v. Lockyer, 01-15098
--------------------
God bless,
Kindgo
Inside the will of God there is no failure. Outside the will of God there is no success.
Posts: 4320 | From: Sunny Florida | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged | 
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
