From: "Earl W", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I thought the point of having courts was to "try the law" EW http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/02/20/scotus.assaultweapons.ap/index.html U.S. Supreme Court upholds California weapons ban February 20, 2001 Web posted at: 10:53 a.m. EST (1553 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. Supreme Court passed up a challenge to California's pioneering assault weapons ban, opting Tuesday not to decide if the state is applying the law unconstitutionally. The court, without comment, let stand a lower court decision that upheld the state's ability to selectively add weapons to the list of banned models while allowing the sale of nearly identical guns. California's 1989 law was passed in part as a response to a school yard shooting in Stockton, Calif., that year in which five children died. The gunman sprayed the playground with a semiautomatic AK-47 rifle before killing himself. The law was a compromise that backers knew would not cover all forms of assault weapons. Instead, the law banned future sales of specific models of military-style semiautomatic weapons and included a provision that the state attorney general could ask courts to ban other models down the line. Gun control advocates prefer bans that describe the action or characteristics of a prohibited gun without regard to a specific make or model. That way copies of a banned gun are also automatically banned. California amended the 1989 law a decade later to add that kind of coverage. The original California law withstood a constitutional challenge that never made it to the Supreme Court. Several other states patterned assault weapons bans on the California law, although some made their bans more comprehensive from the start. This case focused on the way the California attorney general and state courts can revise and expand the law to cover models that were not originally on the banned list. A group of California men and the gunmaker Colt's argued that through the expansion mechanism "the attorney general is now able to accomplish through the judicial back door what there was insufficient political support to accomplish in the legislature." It is not fair that some models end up banned while similar models are not, the suit said. As applied, the law violates the Constitution's guarantee of equal treatment under the law in part because gun owners and dealers are cut out of the decision when new models are proposed for the ban, and the state does not do enough to inform those most directly affected that their guns may be illegal, the suit claimed. The California Supreme Court upheld the add-on procedure last year. Five years after the California law, Congress prohibited domestic production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds. The federal law also expanded existing bans on imports of assault weapons. The case is Kasler v. Lockyer, 00-981. -- This is a misleading article - if the US Supreme Court refuses to consider a case it doesn't mean it has "upheld" the lower court's ruling, it just means it has refused to hear it. Two entirely different things. It does establish any sort of precedent and any legal reporter should know not to put this sort of a title on an article. Only a tiny fraction of cases that are appealed to the US Supreme Court are actually considered. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ____________________________________________________________ T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
