The Post's take on this case: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15919-2002Dec5.html
Stance on Guns for Individuals Rejected Court Slaps Down Ashcroft Policy LOS ANGELES, Dec. 5 -- A federal appeals court ruling in defense of California's ban on assault weapons has rejected a new Justice Department policy asserting that the Second Amendment affords individuals, not just state militias, broad rights to own guns. In a 72-page opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said today that Attorney General John D. Ashcroft's policy change, announced last year, has no legal standing. The ruling conflicts with another federal appeals court ruling in the 5th Circuit last year that formed the legal basis for Ashcroft's decision. At 12:14 PM 12/6/02 -0500, you wrote: >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 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
