You know, if we did that, there would always be a republican president.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jon hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 4:28 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Court Upholds Calif. Assault Weapons Ban
>
> Anyone find it ironic that this is the 9th circuit again? I wish we
> could just drop California into the Europeans laps...they would get
> along really nicely. They both seem to dig the higher taxes, less
> rights thing.
>
> --
> jon
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Friday, December 6, 2002, 1:22:26 PM, you wrote:
> LCL> The Post's take on this case:
> LCL>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15919-2002Dec5.html
>
>
> LCL> Stance on Guns for Individuals Rejected
> LCL> Court Slaps Down Ashcroft Policy
>
> LCL> LOS ANGELES, Dec. 5 -- A federal appeals court ruling in defense
of
> LCL> California's ban on assault weapons has rejected a new Justice
> Department
> LCL> policy asserting that the Second Amendment affords individuals,
not
> just
> LCL> state militias, broad rights to own guns.
> LCL> In a 72-page opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th
Circuit
> said
> LCL> today that Attorney General John D. Ashcroft's policy change,
> announced
> LCL> last year, has no legal standing. The ruling conflicts with
another
> federal
> LCL> appeals court ruling in the 5th Circuit last year that formed the
> legal
> LCL> basis for Ashcroft's decision.
>
>
> LCL> At 12:14 PM 12/6/02 -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.
> >>
> >>
> LCL>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
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
