1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Assault Weapon Law Upheld

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ethics, Dec 6, 2002.

  1. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    "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, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

    California's assault weapons ban, Roberti-Ross Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, was unanimously upheldby 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The act was enacted after a gunman fired a semiautomatic weapon into a Stockton school yard, killing five children and injuring 30.

    Full Story
  2. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    The 9th circuit court of repeals is a real piece of work. I'm looking for a website that has catalogued all of their boneheaded decisions. ;)
  3. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Passed Away Aug. 19, 2006

    Gee, Leon. I read that early this morning and wondered who would post it and risk the wrath of all of the gun nuts. I decided to let you do it. :)
  4. mike

    mike mesmerized

    You meant the " (no) prayer in school" decision they are infamous for? Or was it the Pledge of Allegiance (under God), or both?
  5. mike

    mike mesmerized

    excuse me?
  6. IamZed

    IamZed ...

    Assault weapon laws are stupid. They do not discern the functionality of a weapon but what it looks like. Any weapon that rechambers the next round is a semi-automatic I believe. That would be any weapon with a magazine that has no manual bolt or pump action.

    Exactly how assault weapons defined? The potential to use illegal magazines?
  7. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Passed Away Aug. 19, 2006

    Sure, Mike. You're excused. :)
  8. mike

    mike mesmerized

  9. mike

    mike mesmerized

    An assault weapons is classified as:
    b) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine
    and has at least 2 of --
    (1) A folding or telescoping stock,

    (2) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,

    (3) A bayonet mount,

    (4) A flash suppresser or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash
    suppresser, and

    (5) A grenade launcher

    That is the short of it, not including a list of mfg. and model. Kalifornia, NJ, HI and some counties and local gov't restrict the overall magazine capacity for rifles and pistols, i.e. Kali's no more than 10 rounds........

    The AR-15 is aka the "evil black rifle" by anti's....go figure...
  10. mike

    mike mesmerized

    How does one impeach a judge?
  11. Jedi Writer

    Jedi Writer Guest

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is one of the very few topics that actually gets my blood up. And it has nothing to do with guns in general, assault weapons, or the 2nd Amendment. (This is not a pro or anti-gun post!)

    The Ninth Circuit is the most overturned Federal Appeals Court in the nation---every year! The last time I did an article on them the statistics for that particular year, (about 10 years ago) were that 14 of their decisions had been appealed and heard by the Supreme Court. Of those 11 had been overturned and eight of them were overturned on votes of 9-0! Now when the U.S. Supreme Court votes 9-0 on anything there is nothing to say or argueperiod. The only comment is what a disgrace the appellate courts decision was!

    Stephen Reinhardt is the most overturned judge on the most overturned court in the land. Reinhardt is a worthless 100 percent pure social activist with a 100 percent personal agenda and screw the law and screw his oath and duties piece of work that has been married for many years to Ramona Ripston. She is the head of the Southern California Chapter of the ACLU and like her husband is a person totally without integrity and a 100 percent pure political and social activist who only cares about her political agenda. Her public record and activities are an embarrassment. She has the same lack of character as her husband. If the ACLU had any integrity it would have fired her years ago! But we will skip Ramona and get back to Stephen.

    Just to set the record clear, it is not their politics that I object too, not at all! In Reinhardts case he should be in jail. What you say, arent you overreacting? No not at all. Every judge is like every other person and is biased. No crime there. But a judge is supposed to follow the law and constitution to the best of their ability. They are supposed to equally, accurately, and fairly follow the law. They are supposed to ahere to their constitutional and judical oaths and duties. To willfully not do so is literally a crime. Reinhardt does little of what he supposed to and does a lot of what he should not. He willfully and knowingly violates the law and in some cases probably with malice. He imposes his non-legal point of view, namely his personal agenda and uses that as his <i> sole personal guide to make his decisions. </i> The man is also often a liar regarding the facts he uses to pitifully try and support his dishonest decisions.

    As just one example: I was assigned to personally investigate a case in which Reinhardt was one of the three judges on the panel on the Ninth Circuit that voted 2-1 to overturn the conviction of someone who was sentenced to death in San Bernardino many years ago for murder. The murder was pretty well known at the time as it involved the kidnapping and torture of a young girl by piece of trash psycho who besides keeping her hostage for some time tortured her and made her eat her own feces. He repeatedly shoved her head through the interior walls in the house. An all around nice guy!

    Shit-head Reinhardt and his co-conspirator on the three judge panel overturned the conviction saying that the murderer had not received effective counsel or an inadequate defense. (Reinhardt says something like that in virtually all death penalty cases he reviews.) The two judges cited certain examples of the attorney's ineffectiveness in their written decision.

    I contacted the defense attorney who by this time was retired with a bad heart and with a distinguished and honorable reputation. The poor man was extremely upset because the facts that Reinhardt quoted in his decision that he claimed supported his opinion that the defense counsel was incompetent never happened! Reinhardt was just lying.

    I thoroughly investigated the circumstances of the trial and the allegations including transcripts. Sure enough Reinhardt and his co-conspirator on the Ninth Circuit had just plain outright lied! (By the way Reinhardt will overturn any death penalty case no matter what the circumstances. He lies about most of them that come before him on appeal. Hey he is against the death penalty, (so am I), so screw the law and the peoples will, he will just overturn them anyway. (The third judge on the panel said something to the effect that there was no basis whatsoever to overturn the verdict and the decision of the other two was pretty awful.)

    I eventually dismissed the case against the defense counsel and my decision was upheld without protest.
  12. jfcjrus

    jfcjrus Veteran Member

    Thank you for the very informative post.

    A perfect example of why I frequent this forum. Everyone of the folks here seems to have an arena where they definitely know their shit.

    I guess I'm one of those folks that Robert classifies as a 'gun nut'.
    When I read Ethic's post, I thought; Oh S, here we go again, with the folks that know nothing about guns trying to morally legislate the lives of folks that do.
    It gets tiring responding to the challenge of why I <i>need</i> an assault weapon (defined by some bureaucrat).

    I've had guns for nearly 40 years and haven't caused anyone a peep of a problem. Every year it costs me more and more. Renew the 'license', buy the 'gun safe', buy the 'trigger locks', etc.
    I does no good to ask why they don't go after the folks that use the guns in an uncivilized manner. Too much work, I guess. Easier to convince the masses that they're doing something by regulating the shit out of folks like me.

    But, your post put this court's decision in perspective.

    Problem is, I now have to research further, to insure you're not full of shit, too. ;)
    But that's good. Keeps me on my toes.

    Thanks again, good post.
  13. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Lee Harvey Oswald, shooting from the top floor of the Book Depository was able to take 3 shots from an old Italian bolt action rifle. From a distance of over 258 feet and shooting at a moving target he was able to score 2 hits including a headshot. Now does anybody know where he learned to shoot like this?

    In the Marine Corps ladies!

    Quick, which movie?
  14. Jedi Writer

    Jedi Writer Guest

    Full Metal Jacket
  15. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Nice, and fast, answer. :)
  16. drslash

    drslash It's all about the beer

    This is, of course, BS.

    My argument that the 2nd amendment applies to individual citizens is quite simple. There are 8 places in the Constitution and Amendments where the word "people" appears.

    1) The Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    2) Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1:The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

    3) 1st Amendment:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    4) 2nd Amendment:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    5) 4th Amendment:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    6) 9th Amendment:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    7) 10th Amendment:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    8) 27th Amendment:The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

    When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

    This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.


    I think it is plain to see that the writers of the Constitution and the Amendments used the word "people" when they meant people or individual citizens.
  17. jfcjrus

    jfcjrus Veteran Member

    A bit OT, but you started it ;) .
    Interesting movie.

    Now, how many here believe that Mr. Oswald was actually capable of, and indeed make, those shots.

    Not really paranoia, nor conspiracy theory; just an interesting subject regarding marksmanship.

    Ya, ok. Perhaps a subject for another thread.
    (but, you perked my interest in what folks here, that really <i>know</i> how to shoot, thought.)

  18. Advocat

    Advocat Viral Memes a Speciality Staff Member

    Being Canadian, I'm always cautious about getting involved in US "Right to bear arms" discussions, but let me ask one question... realizing I'm totally unfamiliar with US gun laws/regulations.

    If you have a gun collector's license, would this law interfere with owning an assault-class weapon?

    If you can own such a weapon with a special permit or license, is there really a problem?
    <small>Ducking in case of flying objects</small>:)
  19. mike

    mike mesmerized

    "Assault weapons" can be had in 48 states. They (the firearms) are just in possession of one of those "evil" charactersitics that I listed, if the weapon is post-ban. Pre-bans are still easily obtainable, legally.
    The Bushmaster XM15 rifles that the "shooters" used during that spree is not an AW, and they did not use it as such (rapid-fire), instead taking only one shot per victim.

    However, the politicians of California made the entire state safer ;) by banning those AW-remember the North Hollywood bank shootout?
  20. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    He didn't, and even if he did hit the mark, once, he had plenty of help on the sidelines.

    It's way too difficult for even a trained US Marine to make those shots with that rifle, at that speed of reload.

Share This Page