Re: Most recently, Dave. He admittedly knows nothing about any of the opinions of the 9th circuit court, yet by some miraculous event, he knows they are wrong.
jttmab got this all wrong. I DO know about the 9th circuit court. Ecoterrorists and San Francisco liberals LOVE to have their cases heard there because they always get what they want. That court's opinions are offensive to many people who would rather not be political but are feeling more and more forced to mobilize just to protect their basic freedoms. Two of the more outrageous decisions occurred just recently.
Here's what I know:
The 9th Circuit IS the most overturned court in the country.
In 1943, Supreme Court Justice Jackson wrote that the very purpose of a Bill of Rights "was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
The recent decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding California's ban on so-called ``assault weapons'' shows clearly how out of touch this appellate court is with reality.
The verdict, written by the same justice who recently ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, asserts, in effect, that the words ``the People'' mean each and all of us individually when it comes to our rights to freedom of speech, or religion, or assembly, or protection from illegal searches -- in short, everywhere else in the Constitution -- but somehow means ``the State'' when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.
That interpretation ignores history and the opinions of constitutional scholars nationwide, and is based solely on the liberal desire to find some way -- any way -- to circumvent that pesky Bill of Rights and advance their anti-gun political agenda.
By ruling that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals, but only to states, the 9th sets itself up for yet another spanking by the Supreme Court, which has overturned the 9th more times than any other circuit court in the country.
Federal decisions, most of which acknowledge explicitly or implicitly that the Second Amendment protects an individual right:
Aymette v. State, 2 Hump. (21 Tenn.) 154 (1840)
State v. Newsom, 5 Iredell 181, 27 N.C. 250 (1844)
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846)
State v. Chandler, 5 La. An. 489 (1850)
Smith v. State, 11 La. An. 633 (1856)
State v. Jumel, 13 La. An. 399 (1858)
Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. (50 Tenn.) 165 (1871)
Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455, 25 Am. Rep. 556 (1876)
English v. State, 35 Tex. 473 (1872)
State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455 (1875)
State v. Hill, 53 Ga. 472 (1874)
State v. Wilforth, 74 Mo. 528 (1881)
State v. Workman, 35 W.Va. 367 (1891)
In Re Brickey, 8 Ida. 597, 70 Pac. 609, 101 Am. St. Rep. 215 (1902)
Strickland v. State, 137 Ga. 1, 72 S.E. 260 (1911)
People v. Persce, 204 N.Y. 397 (1912)
State v. Keet, 269 Mo. 206, 190 S.W. 573 (1916)
State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222 (1921)
State v. Nieto, 101 Ohio St. 409, 130 N.E. 663 (1920)
State v. Woodward, 58 Ida. 385, 74 P.2d 92 (1937)
State v. Hart, 66 Ida. 217, 157 P.2d 72 (1945)
Watson V. Stone, 4 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1941)
People v. Liss, 406 Ill. 419, 94 N.E.2d 320 (1950)
State v. Nickerson, 126 Mont. 157 (1952)
In re Rameriz, 193 Cal. 633, 226 P. 914 (1924)
Application of Grauling, 17 Misc.2d 215, 183 N.Y.S.2d 654 (1959)
Burton v. Sills, 99 N.J.Super. 459 (1968)
Grimm v. City of New York, 56 Misc.2d 525, 289 N.Y.S.2d 358 (1968)
Guida v. Dier, 84 Misc.2d 110, 375 N.Y.S.2d 826 (1975)
Rinzler v. Carson, 262 So.2d 661 (Fla. 1972)
Mosher v. City of Dayton, 48 Ohio St.2d 243, 358 N.E.2d 540 (1976)
Kellogg v. City of Gary, 462 N.E.2d 685 (Ind. 1990)
State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359 (1980)
City Of Princeton v. Buckner, 377 S.E.2d 139, 142, 143 (W.Va. 1988)
The following decisions strongly implied that an individual right was
protected by the Second Amendment:
State v. Angelo, 3 N.J.Misc. 1014, 130 A. 458 (1925)
State v. Sanne, 116 N.H. 583, 364 A.2d 630 (1976)
Rabbitt v. Leonard, 36 Conn. Sup. 108 (1979) |
