In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Brady Center Criticizes 5th Circuit Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment

Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
edited October 2001 in General Discussion
Brady Center Criticizes 5th Circuit Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment in Emerson v. United States To: National Desk Contact: Amy Stilwell or Nancy Hwa, 202-898-0792, both of The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence today reacted to the Fifth Circuit Court's decision in Emerson v. United States. Although the court reinstated the charges against Timothy Joe Emerson for illegal possession of a firearm, it also found that the Constitution guarantees the right of an individual to bear arms for purposes unrelated to militia service. "The Fifth Circuit's ruling in Emerson v. United States achieves the right result for the wrong reasons," said Dennis Henigan, director of the Brady Center's Legal Action Project. "We are pleased that the court rejected the National Rifle Association's extremist view that would have guaranteed Timothy Joe Emerson his right to own an arsenal even though he was the subject of a domestic violence restraining order and had threatened his wife with a handgun. "But the Court's suggestion that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to be armed for reasons unrelated to organized militia service is based on a gross distortion of American constitutional history and the prior rulings of the United States Supreme Court. It is obvious that two judges of the Fifth Circuit sought to use this case to propound their theory of the Second Amendment, but it is a theory that has been soundly rejected by every other federal appeals court." As the Emerson opinion itself acknowledged, Federal courts have long held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual's right to bear arms absent a state-sponsored militia. Just this year, the Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Eighth and Tenth Circuits reaffirmed the long-accepted principle that there is no individual right to be armed for personal purposes. For example, in an Oklahoma case (a) handed down in August, the Tenth Circuit unanimously held that "a federal criminal gun-control law does not violate the Second Amendment unless it impairs the state's ability to maintain a well regulated militia." "Clearly, the Fifth Circuit's ruling is an aberration," continued Henigan. "And we believe that the collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment will continue to be the prevailing view of courts in every region outside the Fifth Circuit." The NRA had filed a brief in the Emerson case urging the court to throw out Emerson's indictment. Today, James Baker of the NRA promised to use the Emerson opinion to attack other reasonable gun safety laws. The Brady Center's Legal Action project filed an amicus brief in Emerson v. United States, joined by eleven national law enforcement organizations, opposing the individual rights theory. Background: Timothy Joe Emerson was subject to a domestic violence restraining order that required him not to come near his estranged wife or her young daughter, and was therefore prohibited by federal law, 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(8), from possessing a firearm. He was indicted for violating that provision after an incident in which he threatened his wife with a Beretta pistol and pointed it at her child. Incredibly, Judge Samuel Cummings of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the indictment and ruled that the federal law denying guns to those under restraining orders is an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment. --- (a) US v. Haney, No. 00-6129, 2001 WL 987529, 10th Cir. Aug. 29, 2001 KEYWORDS: LAW, GUNS/FIREARMS, POLICY http://www.usnewswire.com

Comments

  • LowriderLowrider Member Posts: 6,587
    edited November -1
    Yeah. And freedom of speech only applies to elected officials, and freedom of religion only applies to Roman Catholics, and freedom from unwarranted search and seizure only applies to rich people...Now I get it. Now I understand.
    Lord Lowrider the LoquaciousMember:Secret Select Society of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets She was only a fisherman's daughter,But when she saw my rod she reeled.
  • mudgemudge Member Posts: 4,225 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Why am I not surprised? A court ruling against Brady and they're out there screaming about how the judges have a pro-gun agenda. Then they cite anti-gun decisions by other courts but there's no mention of those judges having an agenda.Like I've said, the airlines provide a little bag for this barf. Let 'em scream. I'll guarantee you that a whole bunch of their former supporters have made gun purchases since 9/11. I'm sure that some of their supporters will continue to pay lip service to their cause while the newly purchased firearm rests comfortably (and probably unloaded) by the bed. Mudge
    I can't come to work today. The voices said, STAY HOME AND CLEAN THE GUNS!
  • badboybobbadboybob Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The socialists love to scream and carry on. The ultimate example was our last presidential election. When things don't go their way babies always cry.
    So many guns to buy. So little money.
Sign In or Register to comment.