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.
Concord Resident Petitions Supreme Court
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Concord Resident Petitions Supreme Court
Second Amendment Guarantees an
Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Fourteenth Amendment Makes the
Second Amendment Applicable to the States
P R E S S R E L E A S E
For Immediate Release
For more information:
Alec S. Costerus
alec@costerus.com
978.318.9739
Click here for .pdf version
CONCORD, MASSACHUSETTS (June 27, 2002) -- Two hundred twenty-seven years ago, British troops advanced on Concord to confiscate their arms. As we know, at the North Bridge, the embattled farmers stood to defend their freedoms and drove the British aggressors back to their fort in Boston.
More than three years ago, Concord Police Officers illegally searched the home of Concord resident Alec S. Costerus and unlawfully seized his firearms. Costerus has battled the injustice ever since. Costerus filed a petition today to the nation's highest court in his bid to have Massachusetts' discretionary gun law declared unconstitutional.
Massachusetts enacted its current gun control law in 1998. Among others, the new law requires firearms owners to obtain a license to carry - even to possess a firearm in the home, where a non-discretionary firearms identification card was formerly required. "Under the current law," Costerus says, "that requires a license in order to exercise constitutionally protected rights, one should not be subject to the standardless discretion of 351 local licensing authorities throughout the state." Ten other states also have similar so-called "may issue" statutes. "Discretionary statutes are subject to the arbitrary interpretation or the capricious abuse of discretion of licensing authorities. Worse, they are ripe for discrimination."
The Costerus v. Swift petition asks the Court to determine whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, and whether the Second Amendment embodies a fundamental right made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Costerus also challenges the state's statute as violating both the 'Due Process' and 'Equal Protection' clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Costerus acknowledges the longshot. "Only 1% of the 7,000+ cases brought to the Supreme Court are ever accepted for review." "But," he adds, "we will all lose our rights if, in the face of this aggression, whether in the form of British guns or a legislative pen, we fail to defend our rights."
If the Court grants certiorari, it will mark the first time that the Supreme Court will take a case based on direct review of the Second Amendment. "There have been other cases that discussed the 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms,' but those cases were brought to the Court primarily on other grounds."
The most recent case involved a Texas case, United States v. Emerson, in which the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in the Emerson case allowing the Fifth Circuit ruling to stand. "The First Circuit in my case ruled directly opposite to Emerson, so we have a circuit conflict," Costerus says. "The time is ripe for review."
Representing himself, the former two-time state shooting champion and certified firearms instructor filed a 46-count civil rights suit in October, 2000, in federal court against Concord officers for their illegal search of his home without a warrant and the seizure of his lawfully possessed firearms, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. His suit also seeks prospective injunctive relief against the state for enacting a statute that violates the Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2506
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Second Amendment Guarantees an
Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Fourteenth Amendment Makes the
Second Amendment Applicable to the States
P R E S S R E L E A S E
For Immediate Release
For more information:
Alec S. Costerus
alec@costerus.com
978.318.9739
Click here for .pdf version
CONCORD, MASSACHUSETTS (June 27, 2002) -- Two hundred twenty-seven years ago, British troops advanced on Concord to confiscate their arms. As we know, at the North Bridge, the embattled farmers stood to defend their freedoms and drove the British aggressors back to their fort in Boston.
More than three years ago, Concord Police Officers illegally searched the home of Concord resident Alec S. Costerus and unlawfully seized his firearms. Costerus has battled the injustice ever since. Costerus filed a petition today to the nation's highest court in his bid to have Massachusetts' discretionary gun law declared unconstitutional.
Massachusetts enacted its current gun control law in 1998. Among others, the new law requires firearms owners to obtain a license to carry - even to possess a firearm in the home, where a non-discretionary firearms identification card was formerly required. "Under the current law," Costerus says, "that requires a license in order to exercise constitutionally protected rights, one should not be subject to the standardless discretion of 351 local licensing authorities throughout the state." Ten other states also have similar so-called "may issue" statutes. "Discretionary statutes are subject to the arbitrary interpretation or the capricious abuse of discretion of licensing authorities. Worse, they are ripe for discrimination."
The Costerus v. Swift petition asks the Court to determine whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, and whether the Second Amendment embodies a fundamental right made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Costerus also challenges the state's statute as violating both the 'Due Process' and 'Equal Protection' clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Costerus acknowledges the longshot. "Only 1% of the 7,000+ cases brought to the Supreme Court are ever accepted for review." "But," he adds, "we will all lose our rights if, in the face of this aggression, whether in the form of British guns or a legislative pen, we fail to defend our rights."
If the Court grants certiorari, it will mark the first time that the Supreme Court will take a case based on direct review of the Second Amendment. "There have been other cases that discussed the 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms,' but those cases were brought to the Court primarily on other grounds."
The most recent case involved a Texas case, United States v. Emerson, in which the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in the Emerson case allowing the Fifth Circuit ruling to stand. "The First Circuit in my case ruled directly opposite to Emerson, so we have a circuit conflict," Costerus says. "The time is ripe for review."
Representing himself, the former two-time state shooting champion and certified firearms instructor filed a 46-count civil rights suit in October, 2000, in federal court against Concord officers for their illegal search of his home without a warrant and the seizure of his lawfully possessed firearms, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. His suit also seeks prospective injunctive relief against the state for enacting a statute that violates the Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2506
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
By Gene Mueller
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
American hunters and recreational shooters who strongly support the Second Amendment to the Constitution - the right to keep and bear arms - are keenly aware of what is happening to their closest friends and allies, the Canadians. Top Stories
Security stepped up for Fourth festivities
U.S. threatens to kill peace missions
Bush celebrates voucher win
Rift between blacks, Jews cited in election
95 killed as planes collide in midair
China deploys drones from Israel
U.S. to boost North surveillance
Northrop to buy TRW
to create defense giant
Our northern neighbors are in the middle of a national nightmare; a heavy-handed government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a mandatory national gun registration program that sends loud and clear messages to Canadians that they shouldn't own guns. The government seems to say, "Don't worry. Only soldiers and police need firearms. We'll protect you."
When the Canadian gun control program was first announced some years ago, Americans were warned not to bother coming to Canada unless they were ready to comply with Maple Leaf land's latest laws, which might make a totalitarian power proud. Not only that, anti-Canadian campaigns were started to keep American hunters at home instead of spending their hard-earned cash in an anti-gun country.
But a Canadian friend and businessman, whose identity must be protected lest he suffer repercussions from gun registration proponents in his country, says former President Bill Clinton is at least partially to blame for the Canadian gun mess.
Says he: "We have always believed that the Canadian gun registration legislation was initiated by the Clinton White House, given the remarks I heard Clinton make some years ago when [our] Prime Minister was visiting, and the press conference was covered live on CBC radio. I just happened to hear it.
"Normally, when a visiting head of state comes to the White House and the president and honored guest meet with the press, there is some key issue between the U.S. and the other country that is the focus of the day - you know the drill. Often the questions stray into other issues, but there is always some focal point to initiate the conversation and prompt questions.
"[But] when Prime Minister [Jean] Chretien visited Clinton and the president made his opening remarks from the South Lawn of the White House, he opened his remarks by saying how proud he was to be standing with the first leader in the Western world to implement effective gun control - the Prime Minister of Canada.
"Now given what you know of international relations, issues, visiting dignitaries and diplomacy - would you expect such a comment to lead the remarks by the American president when welcoming the Canadian Prime Minister in front of the world press?"
My friend believes that Canada is in large part a test case for U.S. gun registration proponents, just as Canada has been the proving ground for certain animal rights, anti-hunting and anti-fishing agendas. "Canada is a parallel society in many ways to the U.S.," he says. "What better way to experiment and eliminate the problematic aspects of gun registration before introducing it in the U.S.?"
And what are Canadians concerned with right now? Another attack on their hunting/fishing heritage. There are forces at work to pass animal welfare and protection legislation. Who would object to protecting a dog or horse from a senseless beating, and who would object to laws that demand decent living conditions for animals? Nobody. The only problem is that the legislation can be interpreted to mean that hunting is cruel and that it must stop and that a fish hook is injurious to all the creatures that live in water.
Remember the early Clinton years, when the EPA was trying to press ahead with legislation to ban lead fishing sinkers and other lead tackle? Canadian research was cited regarding the effects of sinkers (jigs, etc.) on loons and waterfowl. The Canada connection is loud and clear.
My Canadian friend believes that the press - outdoors writers, in particular - have missed this story. "There has been a great hue and cry about boycotting Canadian guides and outfitters," he says. "These are the very people who arguably are one of the last lines of defense and political influence against complete firearm confiscation."
He's correct. We would in fact be "shooting the messenger" if we hurt the very people who fought the hardest against such gun legislation. Former customers who quit coming to Canada to protest that country's outrageous attempts to control its people are actually handing their erstwhile hunting friends an economic death sentence.
Look for Gene Mueller's Outdoors column every Sunday and Wednesday, and his Fishing Report every Friday, only in The Washington Times. E-mail: gmueller@washingtontimes.com.
http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20020630-18981054.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878