| Stevie
Reinhardt strikes again!
Forgive
me. I'm not showing proper respect. Judge Stephen Reinhardt
strikes again!
If
you don't know the name – you should. What he writes and rules
will have an impact on your lives. Indeed, if the decisions
hold, on the future of this country.
Stephen
Reinhardt is a judge, sitting on the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals. He's a Carter appointee and serves on a panel that
among wags is called the 9th Circus Court of Appeal.
That's
a clue. It's arguably the most liberal Court of Appeal in the
country and certainly the one whose rulings are most overturned.
Regardless,
it hears cases of major issues and the latest is not one to be
ignored.
The
issue is the right of the state to regulate firearms.
Ultimately, it deals with the meaning of the second amendment.
Twenty-seven
words. They are simple words and, for years, the meaning was
understood.
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.
You
might have thought the meaning of the amendment was clear. It
was, but not now.
On
Dec. 5, the 9th Circuit, a federal appeals court, in a 3-0
decision, unanimously upheld a California ban on assault
weapons. The court said individuals have no right to bear arms
under the Second Amendment.
According
to Judge Reinhardt, who wrote the decision, "The historical
record makes it equally plain that the amendment was not adopted
in order to afford rights to individuals with respect to private
gun ownership or possession."
Interestingly
enough, one of the Judges, Frank J. Magill, went along with the
decision but said it wasn't necessary because the court had
already ruled on the issue, in l966. That case was an appeal of
a Los Angeles denial for a request for a concealed-carry permit.
The court ruled that individuals had no right to bear arms.
If
you ever wondered how lawyers and judges strangle words,
consider this. Not only does Judge Reinhardt state that the
Second Amendment is "clear" that individuals don't
have the right to private gun ownership or possession – he
concluded that the right to "keep and bear arms" is
not the same as owning or possessing them.
Huh?
He
also interpreted the reason for the amendment as a concern by
the people about the federal government having too much power
and that militias would be a safeguard.
He
then goes on to say a state must be free from
"unregulated" mobs of armed individuals. Who are those
mobs? For that, the good judge draws from the anti-gun armament
of boogiemen. The "real" dangers he cites are the
private Michigan Militia and the "extremist militia"
associated with Timothy McVeigh "and other militants with
similar anti-government views, groups of white supremacists or
other racial or religious bigots, or indeed any other private
collection of individuals."
"
… any other private collection of individuals."?
How
about that for leaving the barn door wide-open to legal
interpretation? Thanks for clarifying, your honor. I wonder what
"private collection" might soon find itself under the
scrutiny of the government on any level?
Reinhardt
then goes on to write: "'well-regulated' confirms that
'militia' can only reasonably be construed as referring to a
military force established and controlled by a governmental
entity."
Let
me understand. The founding fathers were concerned about the
government having too much power so they decided the only way to
prevent that was to have a government-controlled military force
to keep order and the people unarmed?
George
Orwell, where are you when we need you?
The
current case came about as an appeal of a sweeping
assault-weapon ban in California. The challenge in district
court was dismissed. The latest ruling upholds that dismissal
which also said off-duty police officers are exempt. The new
ruling does not exempt retired police.
The
next step would be an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Liberals
want to stall that, fearing the present court would reaffirm the
traditional definitions of the right to keep and bear arms.
Remember
my caution about Judge Reinhardt? He's long been a proponent of
mandatory school busing for integration. In June, he ruled the
Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional.
Oh,
and the day before the gun ruling, the 9th ruled that the
atheist father does have a right to sue over the Pledge.
I
told you it was a circus.
 
Barbara
Simpson, "The Babe in the Bunker" as she's known
to her KSFO 560 radio
talk-show audience in San Francisco, has a 20-year radio,
television and newspaper career in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.
|
