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.

CO Gun-rights case sets up conflict

Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
edited December 2002 in General Discussion
Gun-rights case sets up conflict
December 29, 2002

In Colorado, the right to keep and bear arms is indisputably an individual right. The state constitution says, "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question."

Emphasis ours.

We believe the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was historically intended to have the same meaning. But its slightly different wording, "the right of the people . . ." and its reference to a "well-regulated militia" has encouraged those who want to limit or prohibit the private ownership of guns to argue that the right is a collective right, belonging only to those who are enrolled in a formal state militia.

Justice Stephen Reinhardt of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco jumped into the argument earlier this month, on the collective- rights side, in a decision upholding California's ban on assault-style weapons. His opinion in Silveira v. Lock- yer is unlikely to rank among the most influential of its day, given the many flaws in its arguments already pointed out by Second Amendment scholars, but it is useful nonetheless because it sets up a clear conflict among the nation's appeals courts.

The 5th Circuit in New Orleans endorsed the individual-rights position in a 2001 case, United States v. Emerson. Such conflicts often prompt the U.S. Supreme Court to take a case in order to resolve the conflict.

Many people believe there is no conflict to resolve, and that the Supreme Court has already said there is no individual right to own a firearm. That belief rests on a 1939 case, United States v. Miller, which ruled that there was no Second Amendment right to carry a sawed-off shotgun, on the grounds that it was a weapon not suitable for militia use.

That argument certainly suggests that the sawed-off shotgun was an exception to an otherwise broad rule allowing people to have weapons that were suited to militia use, but people can and do read it to mean that ownership of firearms is limited to those serving in a state militia.

However, there's no doubt about the meaning of "militia" as the Supreme Court in 1939 understood it. At the time the Bill of Rights was adopted, the court said, "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." And Reinhardt's opinion neglects to mention that relevant part of Miller, constitutional-law professor Eugene Volokh says, along with much of the rest of the pertinent historical record.

Reinhardt's opinion also claimed that the individual-rights position "had never been adopted by any court" until the 5th Circuit decision.

That claim is preposterous, unless Reinhardt was simply dismissing state Supreme Court decisions. Independent scholar Clayton Cramer promptly provided an extensive list online, from Georgia in 1846 to Illinois in 1950, supporting his claim that "Reinhardt's view is actually modern and rare."

The Supreme Court does not necessarily take the first opportunity to rule on an issue that has drawn conflicting circuit-court decisions, because sometimes the particulars of a single case don't lend themselves to grand constitutional statements. But it usually does pay attention eventually, and we can expect it will be better informed than Reinhardt about the history of Second Amendment rights as recognized in state constitutions.

http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_1634575,00.html


"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

  • Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Gun suit won't be appealed
    Wilmington seeks help to fight crime
    By ADAM TAYLOR
    Staff reporter
    12/27/2002

    Wilmington officials will not appeal the recent dismissal of the city's lawsuit against the gun industry, a decision that ends the 3-year-old case, Mayor James M. Baker said Thursday.

    In his announcement, Baker said he would like to meet with gun makers to work on ways to reduce handgun violence.

    "It is our hope that as partners rather than litigants we can create new ways to eliminate criminal possession and use of firearms," he said in a letter sent Thursday to the suit's 15 defendants.

    Lawrence G. Keane, vice president for the National Shooting Sports Foundation Inc., a trade association and a defendant in the case, praised the city's decision and said he would accept Baker's invitation.

    "We look forward to having the opportunity to work cooperatively with the city of Wilmington on our shared goals of further reducing accidental deaths that involve firearms," he said. "I'm willing to meet with the mayor on behalf of the industry at any time."

    The 1999 suit claimed the defendants - including prominent handgun makers Smith & Wesson, Colt and Glock - could make their guns safer and distribute them in ways that would prevent them from falling into criminals' hands. City officials asked to recoup more than $1 million spent to investigate 263 shootings from 1997 to 2000.

    Superior Court Judge Fred S. Silverman dismissed the case on Dec. 4, saying a common law that forbids municipalities from recovering money for services paid by taxes meant the city could not ask for police overtime and emergency medical costs from the gun manufacturers.

    Baker said he accepted Silverman's decision, but still believes that the gun industry could do a better job policing itself.

    "You have the means and the ability to educate the public about the dangers of irresponsible firearm distribution, use and ownership," he said in the letters.

    Wilmington is one of 32 cities and counties nationwide that have sued gun makers. Seven cases have been dismissed, and the rest are in various phases of litigation.

    The Castano Safe Gun Litigation Group, a consortium of attorneys, handled the case for Wilmington on a contingency basis.

    Reach Adam Taylor at 324-2787 or ataylor@delawareonline.com.
    http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2002/12/27gunsuitwontbeap.html

    "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
Sign In or Register to comment.