Just out: http://www.newsday.com/ap/rnmpwh1t.htm
Court Avoids Gun Rights Ruling By RICHARD CARELLI Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court today shot down an appeal in which two Louisiana men said the Constitution's Second Amendment
gives them and all Americans a personal right to own a gun.
The court, without comment, thwarted the two men from owning hunting rifles because they were convicted of serious, but nonviolent, tax crimes.
``The time is now ripe for this court to squarely confront the issue whether the Second Amendment creates a personal right in favor of individual citizens,'' the justices were told.
The amendment states: ``A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bar arms, shall not be infringed.''
In separate action, the court rejected a challenge to a federal law that prohibits anyone -- including police officers -- from possessing a gun after being convicted of a domestic-violence crime.
In that case, the justices turned away, without comment, arguments by the Fraternal Order of Police that Congress lacks the authority to set qualifications for state and local police.
Neither of today's actions set any legal precedent. The nation's highest court has ruled only once -- in 1939 -- directly on the scope of the amendment, long a hotly debated issue in the political fight over gun control.
The court 60 years ago ruled there is no right to own a sawed-off shotgun in the absence of ``some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.''
The appeal in the Louisiana case had been filed in behalf of James Kostmayer Jr. and Robert Lawson Jr., avid hunters who have been barred from purchasing rifles because of their federal tax convictions.
Kostmayer, a construction industry manager, was sentenced to 10 months in prison and three years probation after pleading guilty in 1994 to conspiring to defraud the government over taxes. Lawson, a certified
public accountant, pleaded guilty in 1993 to submitting a false federal tax form and was sentenced to two years probation.
Their lawyers say Louisiana has restored ``full rights of citizenship'' to both men, including the right to own and possess guns. But a federal law makes it a crime for convicted felons to ``possess ... any firearm or ammunition.''
After the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms refused to grant the two men any relief from the law, they sued. Their lawsuit contended, among other things, that applying the law to them violates their Second Amendment rights.
A federal judge and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against them. ``No rational basis exists for concluding that a construction executive and a CPA endanger society when hunting ducks,'' their Supreme Court appeal said.
But government lawyers urged the justices to reject the appeal.
The second case had its roots in a 1968 federal law barring convicted felons from owning or possessing a gun. The law contains an exception for federal, state and local government officials.
In 1996, Congress extended the gun ban to anyone convicted of a domestic-violence misdemeanor. That amendment contained no exception for government officials.
The FOP sued in federal court, saying the 1996 law violated the Constitution's 10th Amendment by encroaching on states' authority to establish qualifications for their gun-carrying police officers.
A federal judge and three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the 1996 law.
The cases are Kostmayer vs. Department of Treasury, 99-71, and Fraternal Order of Police vs. U.S., 99-106.
What do you think?
------------------
To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state.
Court Avoids Gun Rights Ruling By RICHARD CARELLI Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court today shot down an appeal in which two Louisiana men said the Constitution's Second Amendment
gives them and all Americans a personal right to own a gun.
The court, without comment, thwarted the two men from owning hunting rifles because they were convicted of serious, but nonviolent, tax crimes.
``The time is now ripe for this court to squarely confront the issue whether the Second Amendment creates a personal right in favor of individual citizens,'' the justices were told.
The amendment states: ``A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bar arms, shall not be infringed.''
In separate action, the court rejected a challenge to a federal law that prohibits anyone -- including police officers -- from possessing a gun after being convicted of a domestic-violence crime.
In that case, the justices turned away, without comment, arguments by the Fraternal Order of Police that Congress lacks the authority to set qualifications for state and local police.
Neither of today's actions set any legal precedent. The nation's highest court has ruled only once -- in 1939 -- directly on the scope of the amendment, long a hotly debated issue in the political fight over gun control.
The court 60 years ago ruled there is no right to own a sawed-off shotgun in the absence of ``some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.''
The appeal in the Louisiana case had been filed in behalf of James Kostmayer Jr. and Robert Lawson Jr., avid hunters who have been barred from purchasing rifles because of their federal tax convictions.
Kostmayer, a construction industry manager, was sentenced to 10 months in prison and three years probation after pleading guilty in 1994 to conspiring to defraud the government over taxes. Lawson, a certified
public accountant, pleaded guilty in 1993 to submitting a false federal tax form and was sentenced to two years probation.
Their lawyers say Louisiana has restored ``full rights of citizenship'' to both men, including the right to own and possess guns. But a federal law makes it a crime for convicted felons to ``possess ... any firearm or ammunition.''
After the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms refused to grant the two men any relief from the law, they sued. Their lawsuit contended, among other things, that applying the law to them violates their Second Amendment rights.
A federal judge and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against them. ``No rational basis exists for concluding that a construction executive and a CPA endanger society when hunting ducks,'' their Supreme Court appeal said.
But government lawyers urged the justices to reject the appeal.
The second case had its roots in a 1968 federal law barring convicted felons from owning or possessing a gun. The law contains an exception for federal, state and local government officials.
In 1996, Congress extended the gun ban to anyone convicted of a domestic-violence misdemeanor. That amendment contained no exception for government officials.
The FOP sued in federal court, saying the 1996 law violated the Constitution's 10th Amendment by encroaching on states' authority to establish qualifications for their gun-carrying police officers.
A federal judge and three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the 1996 law.
The cases are Kostmayer vs. Department of Treasury, 99-71, and Fraternal Order of Police vs. U.S., 99-106.
What do you think?
------------------
To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state.
