Joined
·
562 Posts
Stance on Guns for Individuals Rejected Court Slaps Down Ashcroft Policy
By Rene Sanchez
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 6, 2002; Page A19
LOS ANGELES, Dec. 5 -- A federal appeals court ruling in defense of California's ban on assault weapons has rejected a new Justice Department policy asserting that the Second Amendment affords individuals, not just state militias, broad rights to own guns.
In a 72-page opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said today that Attorney General John D. Ashcroft's policy change, announced last year, has no legal standing. The ruling conflicts with another federal appeals court ruling in the 5th Circuit last year that formed the legal basis for Ashcroft's decision.
Ashcroft's move to expand the scope of the Second Amendment from a collective to individual right revamped a federal stance that had been in place for decades and has since brought a wave of new court challenges to some gun laws and criminal cases involving weapons possession. Ashcroft first outlined his views in a letter to the National Rifle Association, then in a formal memo to federal prosecutors.
Gun control groups that have been worried that Ashcroft's position would weaken gun laws praised today's court decision.
Matt Nosanchuk, litigation director of the Violence Policy Center in Washington, said in a statement that the 9th Circuit's view "affirms the constitutionality of our nation's toughest law banning assault weapons" and presents a "comprehensive rebuttal" to the view held by the 5th Circuit and Ashcroft. The 5th Circuit's decision has been appealed to the Supreme Court.
The case that was before the 9th Circuit focused on an assault weapons ban that California approved in 1999, which is more far-reaching than federal statutes.
It prohibits the manufacture, import or sale of any semiautomatic rifles or pistols that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition or can be easily concealed. It also requires people who owned such weapons before the law took effect to register or relinquish them.
A group of those owners had challenged the law in federal court, partly by citing rights under the Second Amendment.
:x
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
By Rene Sanchez
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 6, 2002; Page A19
LOS ANGELES, Dec. 5 -- A federal appeals court ruling in defense of California's ban on assault weapons has rejected a new Justice Department policy asserting that the Second Amendment affords individuals, not just state militias, broad rights to own guns.
In a 72-page opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said today that Attorney General John D. Ashcroft's policy change, announced last year, has no legal standing. The ruling conflicts with another federal appeals court ruling in the 5th Circuit last year that formed the legal basis for Ashcroft's decision.
Ashcroft's move to expand the scope of the Second Amendment from a collective to individual right revamped a federal stance that had been in place for decades and has since brought a wave of new court challenges to some gun laws and criminal cases involving weapons possession. Ashcroft first outlined his views in a letter to the National Rifle Association, then in a formal memo to federal prosecutors.
Gun control groups that have been worried that Ashcroft's position would weaken gun laws praised today's court decision.
Matt Nosanchuk, litigation director of the Violence Policy Center in Washington, said in a statement that the 9th Circuit's view "affirms the constitutionality of our nation's toughest law banning assault weapons" and presents a "comprehensive rebuttal" to the view held by the 5th Circuit and Ashcroft. The 5th Circuit's decision has been appealed to the Supreme Court.
The case that was before the 9th Circuit focused on an assault weapons ban that California approved in 1999, which is more far-reaching than federal statutes.
It prohibits the manufacture, import or sale of any semiautomatic rifles or pistols that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition or can be easily concealed. It also requires people who owned such weapons before the law took effect to register or relinquish them.
A group of those owners had challenged the law in federal court, partly by citing rights under the Second Amendment.
:x
© 2002 The Washington Post Company