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.
Supreme Court Declines Review on Right to Own Guns
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Supreme Court Declines Review on Right to Own Guns
Mon Jun 10,10:17 AM ET
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ( news - web sites) on Monday stayed out of the politically charged debate on whether the Constitution protects an individual's right to possess guns, a position advocated by the Bush administration in reversing the government's long-held policy.
Without comment, the justices declined to hear two cases in which the Justice Department ( news - web sites) last month said the right to bear arms does not apply just to state militias, a change in policy denounced by gun control advocates and praised by the National Rifle Association.
The Justice Department argued there was no need for the Supreme Court to get involved in the two cases, leaving intact federal appeals court rulings that upheld the constitutionality of provisions of federal gun control laws.
The Supreme Court last ruled on the scope of the Second Amendment in 1939 when it said the amendment protects only those rights that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia."
The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
In a footnote in the two cases, Solicitor General Theodore Olson said the government now takes the position the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of the militia, to bear firearms.
Olson said the right was "subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."
The Justice Department has said it plans to defend vigorously the constitutionality under the Second Amendment of all existing federal firearms laws.
The administration's shift in position first surfaced in May last year in a letter by Attorney General John Ashcroft ( news - web sites) to the National Rifle Association. It was repeated in a memo sent in November to all federal prosecutors.
In one of the cases, the justices let stand a U.S. appeals court ruling that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to carry guns, but that exceptions do exist.
The appeals court rejected the arguments by a Texas physician, Timothy Emerson, that a 1994 federal gun law, designed to deny guns to people under restraining orders, was unconstitutional.
The other case involved an Oklahoma man, John Lee Haney, who was convicted of owning two machine guns. He claimed the federal law that bans the possession of a machine gun violated his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
The Justice Department said the constitutional challenges and claims in both cases lacked merit and did not warrant Supreme Court review.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=1&cid=578&u=/nm/20020610/ts_nm/court_guns_dc_1
"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
Mon Jun 10,10:17 AM ET
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ( news - web sites) on Monday stayed out of the politically charged debate on whether the Constitution protects an individual's right to possess guns, a position advocated by the Bush administration in reversing the government's long-held policy.
Without comment, the justices declined to hear two cases in which the Justice Department ( news - web sites) last month said the right to bear arms does not apply just to state militias, a change in policy denounced by gun control advocates and praised by the National Rifle Association.
The Justice Department argued there was no need for the Supreme Court to get involved in the two cases, leaving intact federal appeals court rulings that upheld the constitutionality of provisions of federal gun control laws.
The Supreme Court last ruled on the scope of the Second Amendment in 1939 when it said the amendment protects only those rights that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia."
The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
In a footnote in the two cases, Solicitor General Theodore Olson said the government now takes the position the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of the militia, to bear firearms.
Olson said the right was "subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."
The Justice Department has said it plans to defend vigorously the constitutionality under the Second Amendment of all existing federal firearms laws.
The administration's shift in position first surfaced in May last year in a letter by Attorney General John Ashcroft ( news - web sites) to the National Rifle Association. It was repeated in a memo sent in November to all federal prosecutors.
In one of the cases, the justices let stand a U.S. appeals court ruling that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to carry guns, but that exceptions do exist.
The appeals court rejected the arguments by a Texas physician, Timothy Emerson, that a 1994 federal gun law, designed to deny guns to people under restraining orders, was unconstitutional.
The other case involved an Oklahoma man, John Lee Haney, who was convicted of owning two machine guns. He claimed the federal law that bans the possession of a machine gun violated his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
The Justice Department said the constitutional challenges and claims in both cases lacked merit and did not warrant Supreme Court review.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=1&cid=578&u=/nm/20020610/ts_nm/court_guns_dc_1
"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
Mon Jun 10,10:17 AM ET
By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court said Monday it will not hear two cases that would have offered a test of the Bush administration's newly articulated position that the Constitution protects an individual's right to own guns.
Without comment, the court turned down two men convicted of violating federal gun laws. The men had argued that the laws are unconstitutional because the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to "keep and bear arms."
The cases marked the first time that the Bush administration had told the Supreme Court that it has reversed a decades-old policy on the Second Amendment. Until now, the government has said the amendment protects a collective, not an individual, right to gun ownership.
The distinction is important, because gun laws necessarily restrict individual rights.
The administration also said its new position does not undermine federal gun laws, because the Second Amendment right is still subject to "reasonable restrictions."
Using that rationale, the administration urged the high court not to accept the appeals of Timothy Joe Emerson and John Lee Haney. Both were properly convicted of violating laws the administration considers reasonable limitations of the gun right, Solicitor General Theodore Olson said.
The Second Amendment reads, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The Supreme Court interpreted that in 1939 as a protection of militia rights, not of individual ones. Decades of Justice Department ( news - web sites) policy rested on that interpretation, which preceded most federal laws regulating who may own what type of gun.
"The current position of the United States ... is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms," Olson wrote in footnotes attached to filings in the Emerson and Haney cases.
That right, however, is "subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse," Olson wrote last month.
Olson, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, was reflecting a view that Attorney General John Ashcroft ( news - web sites) had voiced last year in a letter to the National Rifle Association.
"The text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms," Ashcroft wrote then.
At the time Ashcroft wrote the letter, it was unclear whether he was expressing his personal view or stating a new policy position for the government.
That question was mostly answered last November, when he sent a letter to federal prosecutors praising an appeals court decision that found "the Second Amendment does protect individual rights" but noting that those rights could be subject to "limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions."
That opinion by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ( news - web sites) went on to reject arguments from Emerson, a Texas physician, that a 1994 federal gun law was unconstitutional. The law was intended to deny guns to people under judicial restraining orders.
"In my view, the Emerson opinion, and the balance it strikes, generally reflect the correct understanding of the Second Amendment," Ashcroft told prosecutors.
The appeals put the Justice Department in an awkward position. Although the government won both cases in lower courts using the old interpretation of the Second Amendment, Ashcroft had switched gears by the time the appeals reached the high court.
The cases are Emerson v. United States, 01-8780 and Haney v. United States, 01-8272.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20020610/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns_1
"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
This is a perfect example of branches of government being in bed with each other.
I always thought that whole grand statement by the Bush administration about the individuals right to bear arms was fishy. It was done for "politics." The supreme court does not have to hear the case, and all the pro gun folks think Bush did them a favor.
Some favor.
"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
-James Madison
Just curious, there a lot of state national guards, but these are hardly anywhere close to what would be called a militia as understood under the militia termed during the Revolution and imediately after the ratification of the Constitution.
"The great object is that every man.... everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry
Since the bill of rights is now beleived to be a bill that is designed to be used by the federal government AGAINST the states, the best form of "militia" we will find today is organizations that form OUTSIDE of government authority.
"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
-James Madison
Expect the Supreme Court to take a Second Amendment case that doesn't involve complicating circumstances and other laws being broken.
- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
The defendant was not allowed to own a gun, for the simple reason that he had a restraining order against him. Apparently, under Texas law, a divorce case automatically involves placing restraining orders on a person involved with divorce procedings. Denying someone the right to possess a firearm, simply because an automatic restraining order was placed on him,ONLY because he was getting a divorce certainly seems like a good second amendment case to me, and a good fifth amendment case as well.
Reality is, the courts will not recognize a "right to bear arms".
And Olsons explanation regarding the right being "subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons, or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal use", has more holes in it then a piece of swiss cheese.
His "understanding" of the amendment, basically says we do not have a right to bear arms. It states the government will decide whether or not we have that right. That is not a right.
"The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
-James Madison
"We have met the protectors, and they are US!!!
Mudge the patriot
I can't come to work today. The voices said, STAY HOME AND CLEAN THE GUNS!