Loans | Mobile Phone | Modded Xbox | Facebook proxy list | Advertising
Supreme Court Urged to Take on Gun Rights [Archive] - FreeConservatives

PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Urged to Take on Gun Rights


Rink
07-12-2003, 04:00 AM
Supreme Court Urged to Take on Gun Rights
Thu Jul 3, 2:36 AM ET Add Politics - AP to My Yahoo!


By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court is being asked to overturn an appeals court ruling that said the Constitution does not guarantee people a personal right to own a gun.



The court's past rulings on Second Amendment gun rights — many in the 1800s — are a mess that should be straightened out when the justices return from their summer break, an appeal being filed Thursday at the court said.


The appeal relates to one of two closely watched cases from the liberal-leaning 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) in San Francisco. The high court will also decide later this year whether to review a 9th Circuit ruling that banned teacher-led reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools because of the phrase "under God."


The gun case includes an unlikely group of challengers — not the National Rifle Association or other organized groups, but some rugby teammates and friends. They include a police SWAT officer, a Purple Heart recipient, a former Marine sniper, a parole officer, a stockbroker and others with varied political views. They had sued the state over laws banning high-powered weapons.


"Citizens need the Second Amendment for protection of their families, homes and businesses," their attorney and rugby teammate, Gary Gorski of Fair Oaks, Calif., wrote in the appeal of a ruling that upheld California's assault weapons ban.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=8&u=/ap/20030703/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_gun_rights_2

Timberwolf
07-12-2003, 12:27 PM
The 9th Circus Kangaroo Court of Squeals strikes at the very heart of our beloved Constitution AGAIN!!

They are domestic enemies from whom our ELECTED officials are charged to protect us...using the right guaranteed in the 2nd, if necessary.

Rink
07-12-2003, 06:44 PM
Knowin Out luck they'll strike that Constitutional law out the door, the proverbial baby with the bathwater type thing

I Quote:
[ QUOTE ]
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."

[/ QUOTE ]

WHAT part of this cant they understand?

The Rights of the PEOPLE, not the Militia, to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

This part of the Constitution is Crystal Clear! its the right of the People, NOT militias to keep and bear arms.

These gun control twist can only keep trying to twist the constitution to make it that only the Constitution meant that only Militias can keep and bear arms hence vis-a-vis Military or national guard. Not individual people.

Yet right there it says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed upon

Really makes you wonder just why these gun control nuts are so hot to twist the constitution like this.

I feel they ARE the internal enemies of this country.

If the SCOTUS rules against individual holding of arms we might be into some really bad times ahead.

Timberwolf
07-12-2003, 07:04 PM
If the SCotUS does uphold the decision of the 9th Circus, I fear there will be bloodshed by the end of the year, for the revolution will truly be brought to us at that point.

Rink
07-12-2003, 07:09 PM
Thats my fear also, theres a LOT of gun owners that just wont lie down and let the government take this particularly clear as they go on the Constitution's paper's rights away easily.

Gonna be a Lotta WACO's out there i fear

and its gonna be bad for the SCOTUS and govt itself.

Beowulf
07-13-2003, 10:24 PM
The way they've been deciding issues of late, "the right to bear arms" will be overturned. Good thing it takes a 2/3 majority vote of US states to approve an amendment to overturn the 2nd.

Venus
07-18-2003, 02:15 PM
3/4, not 2/3, of the states are needed for ratification of an amendment. 38 states.

Beowulf
07-27-2003, 03:19 AM
Thank you, Venus, for the polite correction. Need to keep me on the right! http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon129.gif

The_Fireman
07-27-2003, 11:04 AM
Very good point Rink.I've always found it odd that these people always say that the phrase "the people" applies to individual rights in the First,Fourth,Ninth,and Tenth amendments, but WHOA in the second it all of a sudden means something different.

crowTrobot
08-23-2003, 10:51 PM
The Supreme court is more interesting in hearing the rights of gays than your rights as a gun owner, or about the 10 commandments.