Bad news -- Gunmakers lose challenge of assault weapons ban

nralife

New member
Gunmakers lose challenge of assault weapons ban

By The Associated Press
October 2, 2000 9:17 a.m. CDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Two gunmakers who challenged Congress' authority to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons lost a Supreme Court appeal today.

The court, without comment, rejected an appeal that said Congress exceeded its power to regulate interstate commerce when it outlawed such weapons in 1994.

The 1994 law, an amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, defines semiautomatic assault weapons to include a list of specified firearms and "copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber."

Navegar Inc. and Penn Arms Inc. challenged the federal ban in 1995.

Florida-based Navegar, doing business as Intratec, manufactures two semiautomatic pistols, the TEC-DC9 and TEC-22, which are among the specifically banned weapons.

Pennsylvania-based Penn Arms makes the Strike 12, a 12-gauge revolving cylinder shotgun. All such shotguns are treated as semiautomatic assault weapons under the 1994 law.

A federal trial judge and the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the ban. In its ruling last year, the appeals court called the law a permissible "regulation of activities having a substantial effect on interstate commerce."

The appeals court cited Congress' "intent to control the flow through interstate commerce of semiautomatic assault weapons bought or manufactured in one state and subsequently transported into other states."

In the appeal acted on today, the gunmakers argued that the appeals court ruling conflicts with recent Supreme Court decisions that pared congressional power by narrowing the definition of interstate commerce.

In one, the Supreme Court said Congress exceeded its authority in banning possession of guns within 1,000 feet of schools. In another, the court struck down a key provision of the Violence Against Women Act.

The gunmakers' appeal said the appeals court wrongly presumed that "the manufacture and transfer of semiautomatic assault weapons was for a national market."

They said the appeals court "had no basis for concluding ... that the intrastate manufacture, transfer or possession of semiautomatic assault weapons had a substantial effect on interstate commerce."

Justice Department lawyers urged the court to reject the appeal. "Federal regulation of firearms and assault weapons is based in large part on evidence that the nationwide market for firearms renders purely local prohibitions ineffective," they said.

The case is Navegar v. U.S., 99-1874.

Copyright 2000 The Associated Press



------------------

NRA Joe's Second Amendment Discussion Forum

http://Second.Amendment.Homepage.com
 
Would someone remind where the constitution gives congress the authority to regulate
commerce not that states.
I tend to forget these little details.

------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
Well there is the matter of the Second Amendment in this case too. How can that law NOT violate the Second??? Also, how does the transfer, or possesion of a firearm directly affect "Interstate commerece"??? Unless you count the physical movement, across state lines, as being "an effect on "Interstate commerece". Even that would have NO real effect on interstate commerce. Well about as much as driving a car from state to state does.

------------------
Dead [Black Ops]

[This message has been edited by Dead (edited October 02, 2000).]
 
I've said it before. The SC will NEVER hear another gun case, at least until the court is MUCH more conservative (and perhaps not even then). There is just TOO MUCH for TPTB to lose, and they all know it.

The 2nd is dead in Amerika, or it will be within 5 years. Emmerson will NEVER be heard.

Buy your stuff now, while there is still time. (I told the wife to expect me to spend $15k+ in 2001 on firearms, ammo & reloading. She didn't like it, but understands the time limit.)

------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H.L. Mencken
 
Hate to say it but I agree with Dennis...

CMOS :(

------------------
NRA? Good. Now join the GOA!

The NRA is our shield, the GOA will be our sword.
 
The Justice Department's statement argues for the least common denominator. If a couple of states have very repressive gun laws, then it is up to Congress to make every state as repressive.

I wonder if Congress will begin regulating interstate newspapers like USA Today? Oh, that's right, the 1st Amendment still has most of its meaning intact, for now.

Rick
 
Dennis and CMSO are correct. The Second Article is dead, for all practical purposes.

The politicians (Supreme Court Justices) will never find in favor of the Second for the simple reason that to do so, would invalidate thousands of anti-Second laws across the country, and almost completely stymie the Grand Plan to establish the Great Brave New Marxist Socialist Police State Utopia, that has been being incessantly put into place for the past 90 years.

Anyone who thinks that eventually, ALL firearms and ammunition won't be outlawed, for all serfs and slaves, is an extremely naive person.

The Locomotives Continue Racing Toward Each Other.

J.B.



[This message has been edited by Jay Baker (edited October 03, 2000).]
 
Hope they crash while I am still young enough to help out.

------------------
Thane (NRA GOA JPFO SAF CAN)
MD C.A.N.OP
tbellomo@home.com
http://homes.acmecity.com/thematrix/digital/237/cansite/can.html
www.members.home.net/tbellomo/tbellomo/index.htm
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression.
In both instances there is a twilight when everything remains
seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all
must be most aware of change in the air - however slight -
lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
--Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
 
Hey, I know today's news was disapointing, but like someone said above... they didn't rule one way or the other on the 2nd Amendment. When we get an "individual" right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in the future by the Supreme Court, it will probably say that assault weapons are in fact militia weapons. They may have to be registered and we may have to jump through hoops to own them, but our right will have been carved in stone. I think that all of us could live with some paperwork, if there was NO fear of confiscation?


Joe

------------------

NRA Joe's Second Amendment Discussion Forum

http://Second.Amendment.Homepage.com
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jay Baker:
Anyone who thinks that eventually, ALL firearms and ammunition will be outlawed, for all serfs and slaves, is an extremely naive person.[/quote]

Shouldn't that read, "Anyone who doesn't think..."?
 
If its up to the opinoin of whos in power
is it truly a right?
Sounds like a privilidge to me?
Got that little thought from a piece Jeff Snyder once wrote .I mean that as a paraphrase not a quote.
(author of :a nation of cowards)
Id have to look up the name of the case but
not to far back we got to watch the gay/boy scout leader case.
Many expected a fair case because of several
conservative repubs on the case.
One of those ruling against us was a supposed conservative Reagan appointee.
So what were we saying about our great hopes for Bush appointee's again.
If we cant get senators and congressmen to vote pro-gun because of the affilliation they calim (conservative republican,Im for your gunrights) what in the worlds makes so many think we can do any better with judges.
-
Because I know you two I know your not being
sqeamish but simply see what direction our facist incredibly unchecked government contines to head in.
But it realy annoys me when Ill hear someone make a statement like 'the gunfight will be over in a few years and well be just like england' knowing the fella just bought a gun then I find out hes never sent a dollar to a gun lobby of any sort much less done anything bold like display a pro-gun bumper sticker or shirt.
Their are many people who dont deserve the freedoms we have but unfortunatly those who do are being punished right along with them.
Or do we???
Whens the last time fought for or stood up for our freedoms.
On the stocking up every time I go to a gunshow I buy more ammo that I wont shoot right away, and just as many said during the Y2k scare , better to have and not need than to need and be overwhelmed by superior forces.
And these days I buy 7mm mag and soon 300win mag.
Reach out and touch some padded animals.


Bad
Attitude
Towrd
Freedom



------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
Ruger45
The wrongly named "interstate commerce clause," is the power in article 1 sec8, that talks about regulating commerce among the several states, foreign nations and Indian tribes.

Clearly the court is being completely inconsistent in this case. Remember the silly switchblade law says that you can't move an automatic knife in interstate commerce. Doesn't say anything about manufacturing one in Iowa and selling it in Iowa.

I don't believe the "assault weapon ban" says anything about moving across state lines at all.

As others have pointed out here, the court isn't going to hear a 2nd case no matter how solid the argument.

Remember, even if Bush wins, we'd better seriously vet any potential court appointees and raise hell if he tries to Souter us!
 
So much for the Supreme Court coming to our rescue. Forget about Emerson. And if you think George the Bush, Part 2 will help, along with the gutless Congressional Republicans, I have some ocean front property in Lake Havasu, Arizona for your consideration.

I think wa all better study up on how to be criminals and get away with it, because we all soon will be.

Our choices are wearing thin.
 
Listen up! To use an old cliche, every cloud has a silver lining. The cloud over us today is no different!

Having lost this case today could actually turn out to be a good thing in the long run. I know it seems hard to believe, but please hear me out. The anti's are fond of saying that not one single gun control law has ever been repealed due to it's being declared unconstitutional on 2nd Amendment grounds and they are right. The reason for this is, is that very few if any gun control laws have ever been challenged in court by saying that they violate "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Instead the NRA and others who have gone to court to overturn these laws, have always done so by saying that the laws were unconstitutional due a violation of the interstate commerce clause or some other provision of the Constitution other than the 2nd Amendment. That is how part of the Brady Bill was struck down. That tactic worked for a while, but now it looks like it will not fly much longer.

Now, it should be apparent even to the NRA, that this tactic is not going to get us much farther! The NRA and other progun groups are finally going to be forced to attack gun control bills for the REAL reason that they are unconstitutional. This is a GOOD thing! Can you imagine a couple of dozen cases all around the country going to trial on 2nd Amendment grounds??? That would be fantastic! Surely we would have many conflicting opinions at the Appeals Court level and this would force the Supreme Court to accept the cases!

All hope is not lost. As this dark day passes another brighter one will appear tomorrow. Let's make lemonade out of the lemons we have been handed and show the other side that we are not a bunch of quitters.

Now is the time to bombard the NRA with millions of phone calls, letters, and faxes telling them to get some backbone and back some cases on 2nd Amendment grounds. What have we got to lose?

Sincerely,
Joe

------------------

NRA Joe's Second Amendment Discussion Forum

http://Second.Amendment.Homepage.com
 
Sorry but I'm a bit confused here.... did the SC rule on this issue or did they take their normal chicken way out and refuse to hear the case? From the sounds of the article they ruled.... but then again they say without any comments? I've never heard of the SC ruling without some kind of comments.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
The Supremes don't just say, "Nah, let's not hear this one". Not hearing the case means that it is without merit.

You can forget the Second Amendment. This court makes it clear that "shall not infringe", like "sexual relations", has a new meaning.

The court has always been political and it has been a long time since they really worried about the strict interpretation of the constitution. After all, is income tax really constitutional?
 
>>The Supremes don't just say, "Nah, let's
>>not hear this one". Not hearing the case
>>means that it is without merit.

Actually, they do simply sluff off cases -- it's called "denying cert." They get so many appeals that they cannot deal with them all. But refusal has nothing to do with the legal merits of the appeal. Rather it has to do with the Supremes' view about the importance of the underlying issue in comparison to the other issues before them.

Today was the first day of the session. Thus the case could not have been heard. This simply was a denial of cert.
 
Discord:

So, the end result is not the same. The case is considered, but not considered important compared to other cases. How does this change the outcome? The Supreme Court is always swamped with work. Why would it be deemed worthy of review the next time around? They must not see it as a Second Amendment case, or more likely, they really don't want to hear this type of case. Hasn't that been the case for many years?
 
I don't see the relevance of 9 political appointees to my rights under the Constitution. I am intelligent enough to know the meaning of the words "keep and bear arms", "shall not be infringed" and it's not necesary for any political hacks to interpret those words for me. I don't care how many years they attended a particular school or what degees they may have or what their political leanings may be.

The Constitution is perfectly clear as written in plain english. It says what the writers meant for it to say and I intend to live by that. Enough said!

RKBA!
 
Back
Top