You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Supreme Court Decision
- Thread starter hawkgt
- Start date
Hey, when you find out, please post this. If this is true then we need to impeach those justices that upheld this rediculous law. It only violates 4 or 5 constitutional provisions among them: ex-post-facto laws, second amendment, 10th amendment, 9th amendment, and I'm sure I left a bunch out.
While I was in the Army this law came out, and a bunch of guys who were convicted for B.S. crimes were thrown out. Yep, this even applied to military issued arms so there was some problems. In Texas, if you come home mad and your kids are watching TV instead of doing what they're s'posed to do, AND you happen to throw the TV out the window (your TV, Your window), then you have just committed an act of family violence assault, and have just lost your right to Keep and Bear arms under this law. If this doesn't convince you to vote Libertarian, what will?
While I was in the Army this law came out, and a bunch of guys who were convicted for B.S. crimes were thrown out. Yep, this even applied to military issued arms so there was some problems. In Texas, if you come home mad and your kids are watching TV instead of doing what they're s'posed to do, AND you happen to throw the TV out the window (your TV, Your window), then you have just committed an act of family violence assault, and have just lost your right to Keep and Bear arms under this law. If this doesn't convince you to vote Libertarian, what will?
Here is the article
Convicted Policeman Loses Gun Case
By RICHARD CARELLI
.c The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - A former Indianapolis policeman who says he had a right to carry a gun even after pleading guilty to a domestic-violence crime lost a Supreme Court appeal today.
The court, without comment, turned away Gerald Gillespie's constitutional challenge to a 1996 federal law that took away his gun and cost him his job.
Today's action marks the second time in the past three months the nation's highest court has let Congress continue banning anyone - including police officers - from possessing a gun after a domestic-violence conviction.
The justices last October rejected a similar challenge mounted by the Fraternal Order of Police.
Neither action likely will quell the debate over the Constitution's Second Amendment's scope, hotly contested in the political fight over gun control.
Gillespie contended, among other things, that the amendment bars Congress from telling a state or city police department who can and cannot possess a gun.
His case has 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. Congress extended the gun ban in 1996 to anyone convicted of a domestic-violence misdemeanor, and did not exempt federal, state and local government officials.
Gillespie in 1995 had pleaded guilty to a battery charge involving his ex-wife. Because of that, Indianapolis police officials decided he could no longer carry a gun.
And because every city police officer must be trained and equipped to possess and use a gun, Gillespie lost the job he had held for more than 25 years. He sued but a federal judge and appeals court ruled against him.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court, in its decision last July, noted that the Supreme Court historically has had little to say about the Second Amendment's scope. In 1939 it said 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 amendment states: ``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.''
In Gillespie's case, the appeals court said the 1939 ruling and others ``do confirm that the Second Amendment establishes no right to possess a firearm apart from ... maintaining a state militia.''
The appeals court said Gillespie ``has not convinced us that he can demonstrate a reasonable relationship between his own inability to carry a firearm and the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.''
The case is Gillespie vs. Indianapolis, 99-626.
Convicted Policeman Loses Gun Case
By RICHARD CARELLI
.c The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - A former Indianapolis policeman who says he had a right to carry a gun even after pleading guilty to a domestic-violence crime lost a Supreme Court appeal today.
The court, without comment, turned away Gerald Gillespie's constitutional challenge to a 1996 federal law that took away his gun and cost him his job.
Today's action marks the second time in the past three months the nation's highest court has let Congress continue banning anyone - including police officers - from possessing a gun after a domestic-violence conviction.
The justices last October rejected a similar challenge mounted by the Fraternal Order of Police.
Neither action likely will quell the debate over the Constitution's Second Amendment's scope, hotly contested in the political fight over gun control.
Gillespie contended, among other things, that the amendment bars Congress from telling a state or city police department who can and cannot possess a gun.
His case has 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. Congress extended the gun ban in 1996 to anyone convicted of a domestic-violence misdemeanor, and did not exempt federal, state and local government officials.
Gillespie in 1995 had pleaded guilty to a battery charge involving his ex-wife. Because of that, Indianapolis police officials decided he could no longer carry a gun.
And because every city police officer must be trained and equipped to possess and use a gun, Gillespie lost the job he had held for more than 25 years. He sued but a federal judge and appeals court ruled against him.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court, in its decision last July, noted that the Supreme Court historically has had little to say about the Second Amendment's scope. In 1939 it said 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 amendment states: ``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.''
In Gillespie's case, the appeals court said the 1939 ruling and others ``do confirm that the Second Amendment establishes no right to possess a firearm apart from ... maintaining a state militia.''
The appeals court said Gillespie ``has not convinced us that he can demonstrate a reasonable relationship between his own inability to carry a firearm and the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.''
The case is Gillespie vs. Indianapolis, 99-626.
David Schmidbauer
Retired Screen Name
Well there goes the Constitution and Bill o' Rights... at least the RKBA, Crule & Unusual Punisment, Ex Post Facto Laws.
------------------
Schmit, GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"
------------------
Schmit, GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"
Please take the CNN article with a grain of salt. In part it reads "The court, without comment, turned away Gerald Gillespie's constitutional challenge to a 1996 federal law that took away his gun and cost him his job." In effect what the court did is refuse to address the issue again. There was no ruling by the SC that I can find. Findlaw and other sites I visited have cases up to and including those for today. No where have I been able to find any reference in the SC docket for Gillespie vs. Indianapolis.
This just goes to show CNN's propaganda. Making it sound like the SC has ruled on the 2nd when in fact the SC is maintaining their chicken S**t stance of refusing to address the issue.
If I am wrong and someone can find a copy of the decission, I would really appreciate a copy.
Thanks,
------------------
Richard
The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
This just goes to show CNN's propaganda. Making it sound like the SC has ruled on the 2nd when in fact the SC is maintaining their chicken S**t stance of refusing to address the issue.
If I am wrong and someone can find a copy of the decission, I would really appreciate a copy.
Thanks,
------------------
Richard
The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
You are absolutely right Bookie. The SC gave a Cert Denied on this one. No ruling has taken place. The SC has repeatedly and forcefully stated that Cert Denied is not a ruling and cannot be construed to mean that the SC either agrees or disagrees with the lower court ruling. Often it means that the case was not 'right' in its temperament and/or its circumstance to rule on the constitutionality of the law in question.
Don't lose heart this is not the end of the world. In fact the SC may be doing us a favor by denying to hear this since it may not have produced the ruling we want.
What we really need is a straight forward case that is solely focused on the 2nd Amend. I doubt that Emerson will make it to the court unless the 5th District Appellate agrees with Cummings (which they won't).
We must find a case that will go all the way for us. Someone has to take the heat, get arrested for something like the Assault Weapons Ban and take it all the way. But who has the time, the money or the balls? I'll bet the NRA would not support such a case financially since I doubt that they want anyt cases to go to the SC. They feel that they might lose.
I don't care either way. Of course I would rather see the SC go our way. If they went witht he collective interpretation, then at least we would know where we stand and we could start the war. I can't stand this ambiguity and the encroachment on our rights.
Don't lose heart this is not the end of the world. In fact the SC may be doing us a favor by denying to hear this since it may not have produced the ruling we want.
What we really need is a straight forward case that is solely focused on the 2nd Amend. I doubt that Emerson will make it to the court unless the 5th District Appellate agrees with Cummings (which they won't).
We must find a case that will go all the way for us. Someone has to take the heat, get arrested for something like the Assault Weapons Ban and take it all the way. But who has the time, the money or the balls? I'll bet the NRA would not support such a case financially since I doubt that they want anyt cases to go to the SC. They feel that they might lose.
I don't care either way. Of course I would rather see the SC go our way. If they went witht he collective interpretation, then at least we would know where we stand and we could start the war. I can't stand this ambiguity and the encroachment on our rights.
The way I view it, this is a good news;bad news thing.
Bad news: SC takes the chicken HSIT stance it has always taken.
Good News: One less trigger puller for the other side, and most importantly gun control laws have bitten into the system a bit. Wasn't FOP the group who stands behind the King when he signs all those new GC laws?? Maybe more cops might take a softer stance next time some BS law comes up. Not because of their beliefs, but simply because they want their asses covered. Ya never know.
------------------
If stupidity hurt, liberals would be walking around in agony.
Bad news: SC takes the chicken HSIT stance it has always taken.
Good News: One less trigger puller for the other side, and most importantly gun control laws have bitten into the system a bit. Wasn't FOP the group who stands behind the King when he signs all those new GC laws?? Maybe more cops might take a softer stance next time some BS law comes up. Not because of their beliefs, but simply because they want their asses covered. Ya never know.
------------------
If stupidity hurt, liberals would be walking around in agony.
I'm with CassidyGT on this. I too am tired of the B.S. from the leftists in media and anti-gun groups, the resultant capitulation by the NRA and the constant defensive posture we are placed in. I would prefer to see a "get it on and get it over with" approach with the NRA, GOA, SAF and other pro-second amendment groups pooling resources for a showdown in the Supreme Court.