San Francisco, CA... no surprise.
At 12:14 PM 12/6/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban
>
>Thu Dec 5,10:36 PM ETAdd U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!
>
>By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer
>
>SAN FRANCISCO(AP) - A federal appeals court unanimously upheld
>California's ban on assault weapons Thursday, saying
>individuals had no right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.
>
>"The historical record makes it equally plain that the amendment was not
>adopted in order to afford rights to
>individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession," Judge
>Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the 9th U.S. Circuit
>Court of Appeals decision.
>
>Weapons owners challenged amendments to a 1989 law that originally
>outlawed 75 high-powered weapons with rapid-fire
>capabilities. The Legislature passed the nation's first law banning such
>weapons after a gunman fired a semiautomatic
>weapon into a Stockton school yard, killing five children and injuring 30.
>
>Following California's lead, several states and the federal government
>passed similar or even stricter bans.
>In 1999, California lawmakers amended the law to ban assault weapons based
>on a host of features instead of specific
>makes and models - a move that outlawed hundreds of so-called copycat
>weapons not clearly defined in the initial law.
>
>"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 in our
>state," said Bill Lockyer,
>California's attorney general.
>
>The National Rifle Association said it was disappointed with the ruling.
>
>"From an organizational standpoint, for 131 years we've been standing
>steadfastly to protect the freedoms of all law
>abiding Americans and stand steadfastly that the Second Amendment is an
>individual right and will continue to do so,"
>said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam.
>
>Arulanandam said it was too early to tell what the effects of the decision
>would be.
>
>Attorneys for the suing gun owners did not immediately return phone calls
>Thursday.
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5
Subscription:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5
Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more
resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
Unsubscribe:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
