Drizzt
Member
Gun-rights confusion
Dec. 20, 2002
Orange County Register Editorial
Conditions are now ripe for the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not dealt with gun control issues since 1939 (and then rather cryptically), to resolve whether the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms or a collective right that can be exercised mainly by members of an organized militia.
Earlier this month the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a set of amendments to California's Assault Weapons Control Act. Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote the 72-page decision as a brief for his assertion in the summary that "the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms."
Judge Reinhardt, you may recall, caused a flap earlier this year when he ruled that "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional, then stayed (postponed indefinitely) the order.
Last year the Fifth Circuit, in United States v. Emerson, came to the opposite view, concluding, on the basis of the language of the amendment and the philosophies of the founders, that the Second Amendment does confer an individual right to bear arms, regardless of whether the individual serves in a militia or not, so long as those weapons have a "legitimate use in the hands of private individuals."
One of the classic conditions that causes the Supreme Court to take up a constitutional issue is when two circuits are in disagreement about the interpretation of a constitutional right. That condition exists now. Whether the court has the political courage and intellectual integrity to do so properly may be in question. But it would not be surprising to see a Second Amendment case on the docket next year or the year after.
We believe, of course, that while Judge Reinhardt's decision was clever and erudite, it was incorrect.
The Second Amendment, like all the other provisions in the Bill of Rights, was designed to recognize an individual right, not a collective right, and there are plenty of court decisions in America's history that affirm this. Most state constitutions (44 of 50, according to UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh) secure an individual right to bear arms.
There has been considerable recent scholarship on the Second Amendment. The best-supported view is that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. We hope the Supreme Court affirms this sound interpretation
http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/o...§ion=COMMENTARY&year=2002&month=12&day=20
This paper had better be careful..... California might revoke their First Amendment rights as well if they keep trying to question what's best for the subjects.
It's good to see that Orange County hasn't changed too much.....
Dec. 20, 2002
Orange County Register Editorial
Conditions are now ripe for the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not dealt with gun control issues since 1939 (and then rather cryptically), to resolve whether the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms or a collective right that can be exercised mainly by members of an organized militia.
Earlier this month the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a set of amendments to California's Assault Weapons Control Act. Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote the 72-page decision as a brief for his assertion in the summary that "the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms."
Judge Reinhardt, you may recall, caused a flap earlier this year when he ruled that "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional, then stayed (postponed indefinitely) the order.
Last year the Fifth Circuit, in United States v. Emerson, came to the opposite view, concluding, on the basis of the language of the amendment and the philosophies of the founders, that the Second Amendment does confer an individual right to bear arms, regardless of whether the individual serves in a militia or not, so long as those weapons have a "legitimate use in the hands of private individuals."
One of the classic conditions that causes the Supreme Court to take up a constitutional issue is when two circuits are in disagreement about the interpretation of a constitutional right. That condition exists now. Whether the court has the political courage and intellectual integrity to do so properly may be in question. But it would not be surprising to see a Second Amendment case on the docket next year or the year after.
We believe, of course, that while Judge Reinhardt's decision was clever and erudite, it was incorrect.
The Second Amendment, like all the other provisions in the Bill of Rights, was designed to recognize an individual right, not a collective right, and there are plenty of court decisions in America's history that affirm this. Most state constitutions (44 of 50, according to UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh) secure an individual right to bear arms.
There has been considerable recent scholarship on the Second Amendment. The best-supported view is that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. We hope the Supreme Court affirms this sound interpretation
http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/o...§ion=COMMENTARY&year=2002&month=12&day=20
This paper had better be careful..... California might revoke their First Amendment rights as well if they keep trying to question what's best for the subjects.
It's good to see that Orange County hasn't changed too much.....
