shooterx10
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2003
- Messages
- 159
Area reacts to gun ruling
Decision denying right to bear arms pits gun owners, gun-control faction
By FELISA CARDONA and CHUCK MUELLER
Staff Writers
Gun owners and dealers took a hit this week when a federal appeals court refused to reconsider a ruling that individuals have no right to bear arms.
Reaction to the court's decision was mixed Thursday between people who are recreational gun users or gun dealers and those who believe firearms don't belong in society.
"That decision is a joke, and the U.S. Supreme Court will overrule them,' said Ray Beeson, owner of Victor Valley Shooters, an Apple Valley gun shop.
But Norma Garrigus of Big Bear City said she was pleased by the decision by justices of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
"If they can keep guns out of the hands of idiots, I am all for it,' Garrigus said.
In a 2-1 decision in December, a panel of justices upheld California's 1999 amended Assault Weapons Control Act, which bans the sale, manufacturing and import of weapons such as grenade launchers, AK-47s, semiautomatic handguns that have "high capacity' magazines and guns that can be fitted with silencers or scopes.
On Tuesday, a majority of the 25 justices of the 9th Circuit voted not to reconsider the ruling that declared that the Second Amendment only protects states' rights to organize and maintain militias.
Six justices dissented and wanted to reconsider the ruling.
Gun dealer Don Dayton, manager of Hesperia Pawn Shop, disagrees with the decision.
"This is a shame, and I'm very concerned,' he said. "This could lead to the government taking away all our guns.'
The Second Amendment gave Americans the right to bear arms, he said.
"Private gun ownership deters foreign invasion,' Dayton said. "But if this keeps up, one day the courts are going to take all of our guns away, saying it's for our own safety.'
Tony Rolland of Riverside said the court decision is reactionary and that some weapons are considered assault weapons when they really aren't.
"It's not a deterrent for someone who wants to do something wrong,' Rolland said. "It's a deterrent to those who want to protect themselves in their own homes.'
Marilu Castillo of San Bernardino said she thinks the court's ruling is the perfect crime-prevention tool.
"I think it's a good thing,' she said. "We have a lot of crazy people with guns that shouldn't have them.'
A June decision by the same court declared the Pledge of Allegiance was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion when recited in public schools. That case is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Recalling the pledge case, Beeson said, "the Ninth Circuit Court is known for its idiotic opinions. This latest ruling disturbs me very much. The Second Amendment was approved to prevent the government from becoming a tyrant.'
In Oak Hills, firearms dealer Joe Soldano said liberal views expressed by the 9th U.S. Circuit jurists may clash with opinions of the Supreme Court.
"If this case goes before the U.S. Supreme Court,' he said, "I don't think it will be as biased and liberal as the appeals court in San Francisco.'
Decision denying right to bear arms pits gun owners, gun-control faction
By FELISA CARDONA and CHUCK MUELLER
Staff Writers
Gun owners and dealers took a hit this week when a federal appeals court refused to reconsider a ruling that individuals have no right to bear arms.
Reaction to the court's decision was mixed Thursday between people who are recreational gun users or gun dealers and those who believe firearms don't belong in society.
"That decision is a joke, and the U.S. Supreme Court will overrule them,' said Ray Beeson, owner of Victor Valley Shooters, an Apple Valley gun shop.
But Norma Garrigus of Big Bear City said she was pleased by the decision by justices of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
"If they can keep guns out of the hands of idiots, I am all for it,' Garrigus said.
In a 2-1 decision in December, a panel of justices upheld California's 1999 amended Assault Weapons Control Act, which bans the sale, manufacturing and import of weapons such as grenade launchers, AK-47s, semiautomatic handguns that have "high capacity' magazines and guns that can be fitted with silencers or scopes.
On Tuesday, a majority of the 25 justices of the 9th Circuit voted not to reconsider the ruling that declared that the Second Amendment only protects states' rights to organize and maintain militias.
Six justices dissented and wanted to reconsider the ruling.
Gun dealer Don Dayton, manager of Hesperia Pawn Shop, disagrees with the decision.
"This is a shame, and I'm very concerned,' he said. "This could lead to the government taking away all our guns.'
The Second Amendment gave Americans the right to bear arms, he said.
"Private gun ownership deters foreign invasion,' Dayton said. "But if this keeps up, one day the courts are going to take all of our guns away, saying it's for our own safety.'
Tony Rolland of Riverside said the court decision is reactionary and that some weapons are considered assault weapons when they really aren't.
"It's not a deterrent for someone who wants to do something wrong,' Rolland said. "It's a deterrent to those who want to protect themselves in their own homes.'
Marilu Castillo of San Bernardino said she thinks the court's ruling is the perfect crime-prevention tool.
"I think it's a good thing,' she said. "We have a lot of crazy people with guns that shouldn't have them.'
A June decision by the same court declared the Pledge of Allegiance was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion when recited in public schools. That case is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Recalling the pledge case, Beeson said, "the Ninth Circuit Court is known for its idiotic opinions. This latest ruling disturbs me very much. The Second Amendment was approved to prevent the government from becoming a tyrant.'
In Oak Hills, firearms dealer Joe Soldano said liberal views expressed by the 9th U.S. Circuit jurists may clash with opinions of the Supreme Court.
"If this case goes before the U.S. Supreme Court,' he said, "I don't think it will be as biased and liberal as the appeals court in San Francisco.'
