9th SHORTCIRCUIT
COURT
THE GLASS IS HALF
FULL ... KINDA
Geoff Metcalf
December 2, 2002
NewsWithViews.com
The
9th Circuit Court of Appeals personifies the Metcalf bromide.
“Some people just don’t want to be confused with FACTS that contradict
their preconceived opinions or prejudices….”
And so once again THE most overturned court in the land cranks out
a 72-page ruling stating the Second Amendment only guarantees the rights
of states to organize a militia.
In
1943 Supreme Court Justice Jackson wrote, the very purpose of a Bill of
Rights, “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of
political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and
officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the
courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free
press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights
may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no
elections." The 9th Circuit disagrees.
In
the wake of the latest 9th Circuit robed bozos revisionist
interpretations I have been flooded with a collective of screams and
gnashing of teeth (most of which is inappropriate to print).
However,
I remain less daunted than most of my Second Amendment defending brethren.
The
5th Circuit ruling (which has become known as the Emerson
decision) UPHOLDS an individual’s right to possess a weapon.
Liberal
left icon and Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe had an
epiphany and begrudgingly admits he had been wrong (a commendable thing
for him to do). Tribe has
recognized that the Second Amendment DOES acknowledge an INDIVIDUAL
RIGHT.
The
LANGUAGE, syntax and content of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
cannot/should not be ignored. “The
People” really does mean “the people” and despite Clintonesque
parsing of new politically correct interpretation and definition of
words “is” means “is” and “the people” means “the
people”. “Shall not”
does not mean “maybe, sometimes, or it depends”.
There
is a significant opportunity for potential unintended consequences to
drive a final nail in the gun control wackos coffin.
For
YEARS, many of us fighting the gun control jihad have been begging for the
United States Supreme Court to rule on the question of individual versus
collective rights. Despite
the protestations and rhetoric of the liberal left, the facts (as even
Laurence Tribe recognized) do not support their moist dream.
The
9th Circuit myopia may well compel the Supremes to do what they
have successfully avoided for decades.
The
9th Circuit IS the most overturned court in the country.
Those bay area limousine liberals maintain their politically
correct heads SO far in rectal defilade it would require major surgery to
extricate them.
So
NOW we have two Circuit Courts with rulings that are diametrically
opposite. Hey, how are the
poor huddled masses supposed to decide which court is right and which is
wrong? They can’t both be
right!
Well,
THIS boys and girls is the classic opportunity (if not requirement) for
the U.S. Supreme Court to decide.
The
judicial activism of the 9th Circuit is consistent with what
the gun grabbers have been telling us all along http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/paranoid_20000315.htm
-
Pete
Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. said, "We'll take one
step at a time, and the first is necessarily -given the political
realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to
strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and
again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is
going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and
sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make
possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions)
totally illegal.”
-
M.
Gartner, then President of NBC News, told USA - Today, “I now think
the only way to control handgun use is to prohibit the guns. And the
only way to do that is to change the Constitution."
First
Amendment law professor at UCLA School of Law Eugene Volokh wrote an
excellent piece in National Review on this controversy.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-volohk120602.asp
However
scholarly refutation of p.c. posturing notwithstanding the reality is the
9th Circuit ruling is taking a knife to a gunfight.
Beyond the factual and constitutional flaws of their ruling it
invites massive non-compliance that would rival the Volstead Act.
We
are at war. Terrorists have
pledged to assault our “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” and
yet robed sycophants conspire to provide the enemy unarmed victims.
“We have met the enemy and he is US.”
If
the Supremes prove malfeasant the result will be massive non-compliance
and an increase in the shadow class of law-abiding criminals
© 2002 Geoff Metcalf - All Rights Reserved
