Supreme Court: "OK to ban assault weapons".

M

Meat-Hook

New member
Monday October 2 11:08 AM ET
Court Rejects Gunmakers' Appeal

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

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 Monday, 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 (news - web sites) 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.

-

On the Net: For the appeals court ruling:
http://www.uscourts.gov/links.html
and click on D.C. Circuit.

Email this story - (View most popular) | Printer-friendly
format

Archived Stories by Date:


Search News
Advanced
Search: Stories Photos Full Coverage


Home
Top Stories
Business
Tech
Politics
World
Local
Entertainment
Sports
Science
Health
Full Coverage

Copyright © 2000 The Associated Press. All rights
reserved.
The information contained in the AP News report may
not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
without the
 
The Court did not ok it. It just didn't hear it.

Somebody here will probably have a better idea, but as I recall, more than 10,000 cases are sent to the Supreme Court for every one that is heard.

Whatever the number is, getting a case heard by the Supreme Court is a long shot to say the least.
 
It is important to not that the Court declined to hear the case, which is not the same thing as agreeing with it. So, the lower court decission stands, but it carries not stamp of higher approval.
 
ABSURDLY bad reporting. Anyone familiar with Supreme Court appeals know that when the SC denies certiorari, this says NOTHING either way about the merits of the case - it does not mean the Court "rejected an appeal" as the story claims. This is highly misleading, because it implies that the denial of cert is a rejection of the argument. It is not - it is ONLY a rejection of the application to decide the case, which means that, although the practical effect is that the appeals court's ruling is upheld (for now), it says nothing of how the SC may ultimately decide an identical case (or issues) in the future. The SC gets about 10,000 applications per year. It only grants cert to only about 200 cases.
 
Methinks the SC judges may have declined the case because, considering the wide-ranging impact of a ruling in this area, they wanted a better case to handle. The contention that the products were not necessarily intended for a national market was really quite silly.
 
Frankly, if the court were looking for a way to step away slowly from anti-2nd amendment legislation a repeal of the assault weapons ban would be a good first step. It's unlikely the court will make a major ruling on the 2nd that could immediately invalidate thousands of laws overnight. It's more plausible (as far as I can tell) to back away slowly. And I'd think the assault weapon ban would be a nice step in that direction.

- gabe
 
I think not hearing a case DOES mean you agree with it, at least if you are the supreme court and the case has something to do with constitutional rights. Actually I've noticed they are doing that a lot lately, not hearing cases that should be heard. Makes me wonder why we pay these people. It reminds me of the current fad where companies hire "consultants" to do their job.
 
Speaking to the SAF, they mentioned that because the law sunsets in 2004(as it is written now), it may have been another reason why they didn't act upon it.

Steve
 
Since the Law sunsets in 2004, the SC may have decided that the case was moot. Or the court may have decided that this Law is a political question. The current court under Renhquist is unlikely to make a lot of judgements in order to maintain the semblance of judicial integrity. Trust me, we don't want a court that that is activist, because they come up with wacky ideas, like privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade and the like.
 
SC reviews cases for "legal errors made by the lower courts".

I know they have had some activists, but they typically look for errors in legal reasoning, procedure, etc., they rarely get new testimony on the facts.

------------------
o I raised my hand to eye level, like pointing a finger, and fired. Wild Bill Hickok
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top