Hey guys, read this and tell me what you think.

http://trees.indstate.edu/cp/tn/fs

 

Sorry guys, this is what I meant.

Calif. ruling called gun-control landmark
SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 6 (UPI) -- A federal appeals court ruling upholding California's ban on assault rifles was being portrayed Friday as a landmark in the constitutional debate over the right to bear arms.

In a 72-page ruling issued Thursday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said the Second Amendment only guarantees the rights of states to organize a militia, and doesn't say anything about citizens being allowed to own semi-automatic weapons or any other firearms.

"With the federal assault weapons ban scheduled to sunset next Congress, the California law stands as one example of how to more effectively restrict these weapons of war," said Matt Nosanchuk, legislative counsel for the Violence Policy Center.

The Ninth Circuit's unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel was at odds with a Fifth Circuit ruling known as the Emerson decision upholding an individual's right to possess a weapon, stating that the Second Amendment pertained to the organization of an organized, state-sponsored militia, and not "an 'unregulated' mob of armed individuals."

"Individual rights advocates have waved the Emerson decision like a battle flag," Nosanchuk said in a statement. "All they have done is awaken a sleeping giant of clear legal thinking and sound historical analysis that finds that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own a gun."

The court agreed, however, that police officers that protect public safety were allowed to own firearms.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the state had no desire to take away the rights of people to hunt or to protect themselves and their homes, however the state was intent on keeping high-powered weapons off the streets.

"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 of our state," Lockyer said.

There was no immediate word as to whether the Justice Department would appeal the ruling or seek a full court review; meanwhile some gun-owners groups concluded the ruling was flawed.

"I don't think the court gets it at all," Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America told the Los Angeles Times. "The court neglected to mention self-defense when discussing legitimate uses of guns."

(Reported by Hil Anderson in Los Angeles)

--

Copyright 2002 by United Press International.

All rights reserved.

 

Here we go again. They punish the good people for the doings of the bad. Kind of like the atv we are all punished for the bad doings of a few!!

 

What a load of BS. They think taking guns away from the common citizen will help the crime. This will not keep the guns off the street, it will just take them away from the people who need to defend themselves.

 

The thing with these rulings is that they are effective only in those areas; ie: 5th Circuit, 9th Circuit. What needs to happen is for someone to take a case on up to the full Supreme Court and argue it using these rulings and get the Supreme Court to finally, once and for all, come out and really define the 2nd Amendment.

So far, only 5 cases have made it all the way to the top court. The last case was Walker v. Texas, 1939. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that this particular individual did not have a right to own a gun while leaving it open as to interpretation for the rest of us.

So, while they sit and wait for the "right" case to come along, we're still gonna argue/debate it to death and have ever more ineffective laws passed.

In the meantime, I'm going to keep my powder dry.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

 

WTF???????????

Who elected these dumba$$'s anyhow?

Don't even get me started!!!!!

 

What else did you expect from the Communist State of California?!?! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-mad.gif[/img]

 

Funny how the rest of the Bill of Rights relates to individual rights and the second amendment supposededly only applies to the rights of the states. Let them take it to the supreme court! The conservative majority will over rule the liberal minority and the law will stand.

High powered weapons my ***! I wouldn't take most of them deer hunting because they are too UNDERPOWERED! They rely on wounding in time of war instead of killing. A wounded trooper takes at least one more person out of battle to care for his wounded buddy. If the antis consider these weapons to be powerful, what does that make my .30-06, an elephant gun?

 

If guns are outlawed.....only the outlaws will have them [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/img]

 

Keep in mind the ninth circuit court of appeals are the most liberal clowns on the face of the earth. I'm pretty sure they're the same idiots who deemed the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. I know this doesn't help those in Kalifornia, but I don't think anything like this could happen anywhere else. Not to diss you guys in Kalifornia, but has anything good ever come from Kalifornia? Thank goodness Bush was elected to office. I know a lot of people don't like him because he's not the most articulate person, but he seems to at least have some decent common sense. I realize there are a lot of backwards people here in Utah, but at least the guns laws are prettyy non restrictive. There's actually a town in Southern Utah that requires every household to own a firearm. I don't think they actually enfoce it, but it's cool anyway. I think if I lived in the peoples republic of kalifornia, I'd get out as soon as possible!