State right. based on the first clause of the statement. larry
At 12:23 PM 12/6/02 -0500, you wrote: >OK folks. Snap poll: > >"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 second amendment to the constitution of the United States > >1. This proclaims an individual right. > >2. This proclaims a state right. > >My rant will follow. > >Tim > >-----Original Message----- >From: Howie Hamlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 12:15 PM >To: CF-Community >Subject: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban > > >Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban > >Thu Dec 5,10:36 PM ETAdd U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo! > >By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer > >SAN FRANCISCO(AP) - A federal appeals court unanimously upheld >California's ban on assault weapons Thursday, saying >individuals had no right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. > >"The historical record makes it equally plain that the amendment was not >adopted in order to afford rights to >individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession," Judge >Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the 9th U.S. Circuit >Court of Appeals decision. > >Weapons owners challenged amendments to a 1989 law that originally >outlawed 75 high-powered weapons with rapid-fire >capabilities. The Legislature passed the nation's first law banning such >weapons after a gunman fired a semiautomatic >weapon into a Stockton school yard, killing five children and injuring 30. > >Following California's lead, several states and the federal government >passed similar or even stricter bans. >In 1999, California lawmakers amended the law to ban assault weapons based >on a host of features instead of specific >makes and models - a move that outlawed hundreds of so-called copycat >weapons not clearly defined in the initial law. > >"While I respect the rights of Californians to pursue hunting and sports >shooting, and of law-abiding citizens to >protect their homes and businesses, there is no need for these military >style weapons to be on the streets in our >state," said Bill Lockyer, >California's attorney general. > >The National Rifle Association said it was disappointed with the ruling. > >"From an organizational standpoint, for 131 years we've been standing >steadfastly to protect the freedoms of all law >abiding Americans and stand steadfastly that the Second Amendment is an >individual right and will continue to do so," >said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. > >Arulanandam said it was too early to tell what the effects of the decision >would be. > >Attorneys for the suing gun owners did not immediately return phone calls >Thursday. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
