9th Circuit Court [Archive] - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

Watchman

12-06-2002, 03:06 PM

Another "gem" from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court that consistently gets their socialist ideas struck down by the Supreme Court.

How is it that these yahoos use their positions for political statments and get away with it ?

SAN FRANCISCO(AP) - A federal appeals court has unanimously upheld California's ban on assault weapons, saying individuals have no right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

<a href="http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/5472036p-6455930c.html" target="_blank">web page</a>

They forget that the Klinton regime is no longer in office.

CinaC

12-06-2002, 03:21 PM

While I agree that they've misinterpreted the Second Ammendment, I'm saddened to see you still label so many of their ruling "socialist" (clearly, your Christian indoctrination has blinded you to certain aspect's of this nation history regarding religion). I've heard you rant and wail for seemingly ever about the "illegality" of their ruling re: pledge of allegiance, and about your supposed fantastic private-school education ... and, well, let's just say it's funny to see you so right on one aspect, and so fundementally wrong on another.

[ 12-06-2002, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

Watchman

12-06-2002, 03:28 PM

Crazy...

The record of the 9th Circuit Court ruling on issues that MOST people regard as being "wrong" stands by itself.

For those that pay attention (hint, hint) you might see a pattern here... but then again, why would I expect you too ? :D

CinaC

12-06-2002, 03:36 PM

Just because people SEE them as being wrong doesn't mean that they always ARE, Watchman.

100 years ago, if they'd ruled that *GASP!* women and blacks should be afforded the same rights as white men, many people would have seen that as being wrong. Doesn't mean they are.

The Treaty of Tripoli expressely states that the US is not a Christian nation. The writing of those who wrote and signed the Constitution expressed the same belief. Yet, the 9th circuit takes "God" out of the Pledge (where it shouldn't have been placed in the first place), and people "see" it as being wrong. And yet it's not. And yet, people still "see" it as being wrong.

Watchman

12-06-2002, 03:40 PM

And yet, people still "see" it as being wrong.

Only those that beleive in something other than themselves.

Go figure... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

CinaC

12-06-2002, 03:45 PM

Are you actually agreeing that 100 years ago, a majority of people "good faithful Christians" (we can assume) believed women and blacks to be less then human and not deserving of full Constitutional rights? So, uh, what changed over the last 100 years?

Good to know religious private school indoctrination worked on you. :rolleyes:

[ 12-06-2002, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

Niteshift

12-06-2002, 03:53 PM

Crazy.........

ENOUGH!!!!

You can't weasel out of this one this time.......

Watchman's post said NOTHING, not a single word about religion. He said "socialist". That is a POLITICAL ideal.

However YOU, the person who claims to not be anti-religion and that we just misinterpret your posts when you sound anti-Christian, turned this into a thread about religion. YOU did it. Nobody else did.

Consider this a warning. Do not continue with your present tactic. It will not be tolerated much longer.

Now, let's put the thread back on the TOPIC.

[ 12-06-2002, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Niteshift ]

Bill R

12-06-2002, 04:08 PM

The 9th Circuit is left of left. I actually see this decision as a good thing though. I think the time is coming near when the Supremes are going to have to address the fact that the RKBA is an individual right. The Supreme Court already has United States v. Thomas Lamar Bean on it's docket which concerns Second Amendment issues. Now the Ninth and Fifth Circuits have handed down contradictory opinions on the Second being an individual right. How can the Supremes dodge the issue any longer?

Deputy757

12-06-2002, 04:30 PM

On the same web page as this story was one about the California Supreme Court upholding a law making it illegal for people to make false allegations/complaints against police officers. I was kind of stunned when I read the quoted narrative from one of the justices.
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
But the state Supreme Court said free speech guarantees take a back seat when it comes to police officers. The potential harm to them from false reports could damage an officer's credibility and even waste police resources investigating the complaints, the court said.

The damage that could be done to police officers, the court added, is akin to the potential harm of a terrorist threat against the nation's president, which is a violation of federal law.
<hr /></blockquote>Now that's a decision that makes sense...and of course, the ACLU absolutely hates it! Speaking of those b*******, where are they with regards to the 2nd Amendment decision? Pretty quiet it seems! :p

Watchman

12-06-2002, 05:04 PM

Speaking of those b*******, where are they with regards to the 2nd Amendment decision? Pretty quiet it seems!

They ignore anything that doesnt fit into their "agenda". Freedom to bear arms is definatley not on it.

Mike Tx

12-06-2002, 06:47 PM

Relax, just let the ninth circus keep talking. In the long run it will do more good than harm.

RachelR

12-06-2002, 07:11 PM

I disagree with their ruling also (obviously). We'll all need firearms to protect ourselves when people like Watchman turn the good ole US of A into a Christian nation <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northem Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?" - Barry Goldwater

(Sorry Nite, just couldn't resist!)

Mike Tx

12-06-2002, 07:36 PM

<a href="http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/4679253.htm" target="_blank">Anti Gun Newspaper</a>

[ 12-06-2002, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: Mike Tx ]

Bob A

12-06-2002, 08:48 PM

Sorry Niteshift if it seems like I'm drifting off topic, but it seems to me that we get completely wrapped around the axle with court decisions.

The reason courts at any level get away with this is because we allow it. By we, I mean the citizenry. That leaves a minority in charge, with another minority trying to keep them in check.

How do we fix it? Why can't we ammend the 2d Ammendment, or clarify it with a new one? Individual states can ammend their own constitutions also.

What courts do is make decisions based on the constitutionality of laws. If the document is less vague, it leaves courts with less wiggle room.

Mike Tx

12-06-2002, 09:42 PM

What you are asking for is what the original amendment was for.

Bill R

12-06-2002, 10:10 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bob A:


That leaves a minority in charge, with another minority trying to keep them in check.

How do we fix it? Why can't we ammend the 2d Ammendment, or clarify it with a new one? Individual states can ammend their own constitutions also.

What courts do is make decisions based on the constitutionality of laws. If the document is less vague, it leaves courts with less wiggle room.<hr /></blockquote>Bob, the 10th Amendment is pretty clear. Yet in spite of that fact the SCOTUS manages to find plenty of wiggle room in allowing the federal government to get involved in things not authorized by the Constitution. I mean how far can they legitimately stretch the interstate commerce clause??? :rolleyes: To amend the Constitution would need to involve Congress or a Constitutional Convention. Congress doesn't seem likely. A Constitutional convention is scary also. We might just end up worse than we are now.

Niteshift

12-06-2002, 11:04 PM

"Sorry Niteshift if it seems like I'm drifting off topic"

Bob, you're not off topic.....you're ON topic. The topic is gun ownership and the Constitution, not how much you dislike Christians.

Raychel....... report to the mods forum for your spanking. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

Bob A

12-07-2002, 03:04 AM

Bob, the 10th Amendment is pretty clear.

To most rational people Bill, it is. The problem is lawyers who justify their miserable existence by reading things into plain language. That's why we have those dang disclaimers on everything.

We seem to need protection in place for the idiots among us. I know I'm being a smart@$$, but I don't think Adams, Madison, and Jefferson accounted for the village idiots as we do nowadays. Back then if you spilled hot coffee on yourself, you'd have been called clumsy, now you get called millionaire.

We keep looking at the UK model for guns, which any fool can see is not good. As admitted by UK officers on this forum, it's a cultural difference. What we should look at is their tort laws. Our goal should be to limit frivolous suits which bog down the overburdened legal system.

We should seek term limits for all federal offices. People like Robert Byrd, Jesse Helms and Strom Thurman have no business running our country.

We need a criminal justice system that punishes criminals, and tons of reform in juvenile law, starting with some standards for accountability by age.

Most importantly, we need a process to review the performance of all judges. Life appointment or not, upholding a bad law or failing to uphold a good law should be an impeachable offense at the least, and a crime at the worst. I can't find a single thing in the Constitution that says we aren't able to hold judges accountable.

For me, an ammendment isn't needed. the other 9 ammendments in the BOR spell out individual freedoms, so I have no reason to believe that the 2d wouldn't also. But I'm not a lawyer.

What I do know is that the antigun crowd does not care about the Constitution, the law, fact, or even right or wrong. They are hyperemotional reactionaries who will keep bringing suit until they get an answer from the courts that they like. We need to think about how to close those avenues to them.

What you are asking for is what the original amendment was for.

I understand that Mike. What these idiot lawyers do is argue semantics. Militia means National Guard and crap like that. I'm taking about defining what militia means and who
the people are. Perhap the phrase should have been the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Most Americans think that the general populace armed with pistols and rifles wouldn't stand a chance against the US military. War is more than a contest of technology; it's also a matter of human will. If you can't believe that, take a look at the late unpleasantness in SE Asia (Vietnam for the folks in Palm Beach County) and Afghanistan where the largest army ever assembled was turned away with small arms and men on horseback.

Mike Tx

12-07-2002, 07:44 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Most Americans think that the general populace armed with pistols and rifles wouldn't stand a chance against the US military. War is more than a contest of technology; it's also a matter of human will. If you can't believe that, take a look at the late unpleasantness in SE Asia (Vietnam for the folks in Palm Beach County) and Afghanistan where the largest army ever assembled was turned away with small arms and men on horseback. <hr /></blockquote>That's very true. Many people also think that these same soldiers in our country, if ordered to take out their aunts and uncles and brothers and neighborhoods, because they own guns, would say, "Ok, no problem."

Niteshift

12-07-2002, 11:57 AM

"Most Americans think that the general populace armed with pistols and rifles wouldn't stand a chance against the US military. War is more than a contest of technology; it's also a matter of human will."

Two thoughts on the subject.........

First, I laid out, on another forum, how Resistance fighters in WW2 could eventually stop a Panzer unit with a single shot .45. Kind of a cool concept.

Second is something I heard in a movie (but I don't remember which one) that rang VERY true. A pilot made a joke about coming back with an arrow in the bottom of his chopper and asked how people expect to fight a chopper with arrows. Another one replied "How do you fight a man who fights a chopper with arrows".

Watchman

12-07-2002, 12:15 PM

A pilot made a joke about coming back with an arrow in the bottom of his chopper and asked how people expect to fight a chopper with arrows. Another one replied "How do you fight a man who fights a chopper with arrows".

Good points.

There ya have it. Many people forget and many people never learn that a determined foe with a reason to fight can be the most powerful force on earth. Its not the weapons(or lack of) that wins the fight, but its the spirit of the fight in the man.

I read once that less than 10 percent of people in the US at the time of the Revolution actually believed that they could win a war against the British and that less than 2 percent actually participated in one way or the other.

There were those that resisted the effort and those that refused to assist thinking that the effort was an exercise in futility. There will always be those people and they will always be in the majority. It takes a brave man with a vision to change things in this world and they will always be in the minority.

Those 2 percent changed the world.

Bob A

12-07-2002, 02:47 PM

First, I laid out, on another forum, how Resistance fighters in WW2 could eventually stop a Panzer unit with a single shot .45. Kind of a cool concept.

Nite, what forum? This sounds interesting.

Many people also think that these same soldiers in our country, if ordered to take out their aunts and uncles and brothers and neighborhoods, because they own guns, would say, "Ok, no problem."

Mike, at first I was going to dispute that, but there are plenty of morons around. All you need to do is watch the news. I am a former Marine. Both of my best friends were in the Army, and most of the people with whom I associate are veterans. I don't know a single one of us who would consider giving or following this type of order.

FWIW, even considering the state of the federal government, I doubt more than a handful would actively pursue action against it either, even if the 2d ammendment got repealed altogether. Most veterans have a very strong sense of duty and patriotism.

ASOinFL

12-07-2002, 02:57 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Niteshift:
[QB][i]First, I laid out, on another forum, how Resistance fighters in WW2 could eventually stop a Panzer unit with a single shot .45. Kind of a cool concept.
QB]<hr /></blockquote>Ok...this is off topic........but what forum was this and how did they stop a panzer with a .45? I'd pay a dollar to see that.

Mike Tx

12-07-2002, 03:15 PM

Bob A, just so you know what I meant, in case you did not, I know the vast majority of soldiers would refuse to do that, I only meant some people think they would.

[ 12-07-2002, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Mike Tx ]

Deputy757

12-07-2002, 03:45 PM

Here's another reversal by the US Supreme Court of a 9th Circuit decision. This one has to do with Search and Seizure.
Enjoy! :D
<a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=00-1519" target="_blank">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=00-1519</a>

retired

12-07-2002, 05:09 PM

Mike,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mike Tx:
Bob A, just so you know what I meant, in case you did not, I know the vast majority of soldiers would refuse to do that, I only meant some people think they would.<hr /></blockquote>I would hope that ALL of the military would refuse an order like that!

Mike Tx

12-07-2002, 05:20 PM

I would too, but you know some folks will follow orders no matter what they are.

Bill R

12-07-2002, 09:49 PM

Retired,
I would hope that ALL of the military would refuse an order like that!
I would hope the same thing. Unfortunately, Mike is right. Some would follow any order.

Jim Burnes

12-07-2002, 10:56 PM

The military service people have a duty to obey a lawful order. That's just a black and white issue, lawful orders will be obeyed. People who have not served in the military may not understand however, that the service people also have a greater duty to the law.

We have the duty, and the right to refuse any order which is unlawful. In times past, the soldier or sailor had to first obey, then if desired, could report the unlawful order. But that has changed.

Orders to advance into fire and kill the enemy are lawful, there is no compromise there in the intent of the order. Orders to set up ambush and assault an otherwise defenseless supply collumn is lawful. But that's combat. That's clear.

An order to enter private homes and take legally possessed property from the homes of American citizens, using whatever force required is illegal. Repealing the 2nd Admendment does not create the need for the military to be abused in it's own mission; the order would be issued from a Brigade level command, passed downward to Battalions but would be delayed, and taken to court at each level by the Commanding officer of each level it reached. The weapons would never be removed from any homes. Finally, the individual squad and soldier would simply refuse the illegal order.

I always get a kick from some of the forums I read on the internet. So many think the military is some faceless, mindless collection of losers and vagrants. The opposite is true however, they are the best America has and they are allowed to think.

If Mike TX replies with something offensive, I'll be driving to Texas thereafter :p

Jim Burnes

Mike Tx

12-07-2002, 11:01 PM

I always knew you'd end up in the thereafter. :D

Jim Burnes

12-07-2002, 11:33 PM

OK, that's it! I'm on my way. Look for my Pontiac... :D

Niteshift

12-07-2002, 11:33 PM

"how did they stop a panzer with a .45? I'd pay a dollar to see that."

The key word to what I said was EVENTUALLY.

The short version:
We dropped single shot .45's to partisans in France during WW2. The plan was to get close, use it to kill a German and take his gun. Then use that gun to kill more Germans and take their guns and arm more partisans. Get enough armed and hit a typically lightly guarded ammo dump. Blow the ammo dump, but save some explosives for your raid on the typically lightly guarded fuel dump. Blow it up. No fuel. No ammo. No effective panzer unit.

Deputy757

12-08-2002, 01:13 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jim Burnes:
 So many think the military is some faceless, mindless collection of losers and vagrants. The opposite is true however, they are the best America has and they are allowed to think.
<hr /></blockquote>If you take away the descriptors "losers and vagrants" (in most cases), you are talking about your basic E-1 to E-3 Marine. They are faceless, mindless AND the best America has but they are not allowed to think. The do what they are told and they would be the one's most likely to follow that hypothetical order.

Mike Tx

12-08-2002, 01:24 PM

An interesting coincidence happened. This morning I was up early and The American Shooter came on tv, or whatever it's called. Among the gun stuff, they had an article on the .45 liberator, showing how it worked, down to the ten rounds it stored in the pistol grip, and the instructional drawing that came with each one, detailing how to load and fire it.

They said it cost something like a dollar to make at a General Motors sheet metal plant, and that it took longer to load, then to make. There was no registration or paper trail for any of those weapons, and no one knows where they are today, just that they were parachuted into parts of Europe and Africa, and are still around today. They showed how to load and fire one on the show. Pretty simple actually.

[ 12-08-2002, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Mike Tx ]

Mike Tx

12-08-2002, 01:26 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />A pilot made a joke about coming back with an arrow in the bottom of his chopper and asked how people expect to fight a chopper with arrows. Another one replied "How do you fight a man who fights a chopper with arrows".<hr /></blockquote>It was Rambo. He had those explosive tipped arrows that blew those Rooskie helicoptors to shreds.

:p

Jim Burnes

12-08-2002, 02:24 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Deputy757:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />
<hr /></blockquote>If you take away the descriptors "losers and vagrants" (in most cases), you are talking about your basic E-1 to E-3 Marine. They are faceless, mindless AND the best America has but they are not allowed to think. The do what they are told and they would be the one's most likely to follow that hypothetical order.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>You have either never served, or have had a very bad time with the military when you did serve.

Jim Burnes

Mike Tx

12-08-2002, 03:05 PM

In order to be, let's say, a Marine, you cannot be mindless. You have to have a mind, and you have to have a mindset that will make you become that Marine. My wife is a Marine.

Jim is right though, to many people, the military are faceless. Many people cared more for Dale Earnhardt, who had the best of all equipment, when he was killed, than for the soldiers killed in a helicoptor crash in Hawaii at that same time.

Deputy757

12-12-2002, 04:22 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jim Burnes:

You have either never served, or have had a very bad time with the military when you did serve.
Jim Burnes<hr /></blockquote>I have served and I had a great nine years. In that time I came across many who thought that their only duty was to blindly obey. In fact, we had a young marine in the squad room the other day ( the son of one of our state police) and he was spouting all the rhetoric that they are taught at Paris Island. There's nothing wrong with that...they have a job to do, a job no one else really wants, and that's why they have to "indoctrinate" their recruits so thoroughly. His contention was that marines could and do all of the job by themselves with no help from any other service. He could not be convinced that other services had anything worthwhile to offer to a mission. I'm sure that when an officer say's jump, he asks how high and that if he were told it was time to disarm the citizenry, he'd ask who first.