Quote:
Originally posted by Gemini
Isn't the ninth circuit the one that they released details on awhile back? Something like 98% of their rulings are reversed or over-ruled by the Supreme Court?! 
|
The Supreme Court has flatly held that the individual?s right to keep and bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution." In the four cases in which the high court has addressed the issue, it has consistently held that the Second Amendment does not confer a blanket right of individual gun ownership. The most important Supreme Court Second Amendment case, U.S. v. Miller, was decided in 1939. It involved two men who illegally shipped a sawed-off shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, then claimed the Second Amendment prohibited the federal government from prosecuting them. The court emphatically disagreed, ruling that the Second Amendment had the "obvious purpose" of creating state militias, not of authorizing individual gun ownership. In two earlier rulings in 1876 and 1886, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment affected only the federal government?s power to regulate gun ownership and had no effect on state gun control powers. Those cases, Presser v. U.S. and U.S. v. Cruikshank, formed the basis for the continuing legal decisions that the Second Amendment is not an impediment to rational gun control. In another case that the Supreme Court declined to review, a federal appeals court in Illinois ruled in 1983 that the Second Amendment could not prevent a municipal government from banning handgun possession. In the case, Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, the appeals court held that contemporary handguns couldn?t be considered as weapons relevant to a collective militia.
Sowwy, but the 9th Circuit is right.. again
For some reason, people never question why the NRA and other pro-gunners don't challenge gun control laws with 2nd Amendment challenges in court. Its because they'd lose.
I guess its just easier to raise money by whipping people into near hysteria over an entirely imaginary right than actually attempt to assert that "right" in the way provided for by the Constitution.
Yet once again we see that those who shreik the loudest about the Constitution and 2nd Amendment are actually the ones who refuse to follow it when the legal process doesn't favor their whims. Doubly ironically, that is exactly what the morons accuse "liberal judges" of doing.