I'm all for being able to have guns, but people dont need to have ASSAULT weapons.
Someone breaks into your house capping them with 3 or 4 shots from a rifle or gun is as good as unloading a clip of 30 into their torso with an assault rifle ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jacob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 12:32 PM Subject: Re: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban > 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 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
