Justices refuse to hear gun case
Control advocates say intent of 2nd Amendment is clear
By Amy Joi Bryson
Deseret Morning News
Local pro-gun groups blasted Monday's refusal of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case that ultimately could have decided if the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to own a gun.
On the flip side, gun control advocates hailed the non-decision, saying the high court's silence reaffirms that the Second Amendment applies to the right of an armed militia, not individuals.
"By the court refusing to hear this case, that tells me they don't believe individuals should have the right to own an assault-style weapon," said Marla Kennedy, executive director of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah.
The Second Amendment says, "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."
A 9th Circuit Court ruling upheld a 1989 California law banning personal ownership of rapid-fire assault weapons, saying the Second Amendment's intent was to protect gun rights of militias, not individuals.
The high court had been asked to consider an appeal of that 9th Circuit decision, but the Supreme Court justices refused, without comment, to review it.
Utah is in the 10th Circuit Court's jurisdiction and, technically, not subject to what the 9th Circuit decides; but locals said it's just a matter of time until the Supreme Court is forced to decide the issue nationally.
Elwood Powell, chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports Council, said the court's non-decision was a clear dodge of an issue that needs to be settled.
"Sooner or later, there will be a case that they will not be able to refuse to accept," Powell said, adding that the 9th Circuit decision is clearly at odds with a 5th Circuit Court ruling that said individuals have the right to own guns.
"The question is how long it is going to take to find a case that the U.S. Supreme Court wants to use to clearly define what the Second Amendment means."
But Kennedy and other gun-control advocates say the refusal to hear the case should send a clear message that the conservative high court believes the issue already has been settled.
"No less than 30 times, state and federal courts across the country have said the individual right to own a gun is not defined by the U.S. Constitution, but rather that right is extended only to the militia," Kennedy said.
Janalee Tobias, founder of Women Against Gun Control, said the ruling is disappointing. Her group, along with several others, filed briefs with the high court, urging justices to take the case.
"I was hoping the Supreme Court would hear the case, especially from a woman's point of view, because we need guns to protect ourselves. . . . I was really surprised because gun rights are an individual right."
Many other groups wanted the court to take the politically charged case, including the National Rifle Association; the Pink Pistols, a group of gay and lesbian gun owners; the Second Amendment Sisters; Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws; and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
Dave Jones, a former Utah lawmaker who is involved in a grassroots effort to ban concealed weapons from churches and schools, said the high court simply affirmed a common sense ruling.
"The preservation of our fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution, including the right to keep and bear arms, depends on our willingness to accept reasonable, rational and common sense limitations on those rights," he said.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1,1249,565035908,00.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair use
Control advocates say intent of 2nd Amendment is clear
By Amy Joi Bryson
Deseret Morning News
Local pro-gun groups blasted Monday's refusal of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case that ultimately could have decided if the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to own a gun.
On the flip side, gun control advocates hailed the non-decision, saying the high court's silence reaffirms that the Second Amendment applies to the right of an armed militia, not individuals.
"By the court refusing to hear this case, that tells me they don't believe individuals should have the right to own an assault-style weapon," said Marla Kennedy, executive director of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah.
The Second Amendment says, "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."
A 9th Circuit Court ruling upheld a 1989 California law banning personal ownership of rapid-fire assault weapons, saying the Second Amendment's intent was to protect gun rights of militias, not individuals.
The high court had been asked to consider an appeal of that 9th Circuit decision, but the Supreme Court justices refused, without comment, to review it.
Utah is in the 10th Circuit Court's jurisdiction and, technically, not subject to what the 9th Circuit decides; but locals said it's just a matter of time until the Supreme Court is forced to decide the issue nationally.
Elwood Powell, chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports Council, said the court's non-decision was a clear dodge of an issue that needs to be settled.
"Sooner or later, there will be a case that they will not be able to refuse to accept," Powell said, adding that the 9th Circuit decision is clearly at odds with a 5th Circuit Court ruling that said individuals have the right to own guns.
"The question is how long it is going to take to find a case that the U.S. Supreme Court wants to use to clearly define what the Second Amendment means."
But Kennedy and other gun-control advocates say the refusal to hear the case should send a clear message that the conservative high court believes the issue already has been settled.
"No less than 30 times, state and federal courts across the country have said the individual right to own a gun is not defined by the U.S. Constitution, but rather that right is extended only to the militia," Kennedy said.
Janalee Tobias, founder of Women Against Gun Control, said the ruling is disappointing. Her group, along with several others, filed briefs with the high court, urging justices to take the case.
"I was hoping the Supreme Court would hear the case, especially from a woman's point of view, because we need guns to protect ourselves. . . . I was really surprised because gun rights are an individual right."
Many other groups wanted the court to take the politically charged case, including the National Rifle Association; the Pink Pistols, a group of gay and lesbian gun owners; the Second Amendment Sisters; Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws; and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
Dave Jones, a former Utah lawmaker who is involved in a grassroots effort to ban concealed weapons from churches and schools, said the high court simply affirmed a common sense ruling.
"The preservation of our fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution, including the right to keep and bear arms, depends on our willingness to accept reasonable, rational and common sense limitations on those rights," he said.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1,1249,565035908,00.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair use
Not only are you against women, but you are also against the elderly as well. Anyone over 45 and not male isnt a part of the militia, and this ruling as well as the cause you fight for are very discriminatory in nature. Very unbecoming of a liberal to be so discriminatory. 
