Good news 2nd ammendment case

Supreme court webpage ^

[woerm]

Silveira has been posted to 11-26 conference

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/03-51.htm

further info on case is at

www.keepandbeararms.com

r

[El Laton Caliente]

I just hope the "Living Document" side loses here.

[Ancesthntr]

Silveira has been posted to 11-26 conference

OK, Constitutional and/or Supreme Court scholars, what exactly does this mean - has Cert. been granted or not? If not, is this a positive sign?

[Ancesthntr]

Take a look at this!

[AntiGuv]

It means that the justices will decide on November 26 whether to grant certiorari, and that docket sheet also means that they're taking this case very seriously (in September they explicitly requested response from California).

[Ancesthntr]

So it will either be a very good or a very bad Thanksgiving - thanks for the info.

[Shooter 2.5]

It's not going to happen. We had to depend on Justices like O'Connor to do the right thing and look what she said about International Law.

We waited 40 years for a case before THIS Supreme Court? It's stupid.

[SteveH]

legal commentary solicitation ping...

[Joe Brower]

I am constantly reminded of the phrase, "One does not make history; one merely survives it".

[CHICAGOFARMER]

Here is the link

http://www.keepandbeararms.com

[StriperSniper]

the "Living Document" side

The irony of their possition is that it in effect shoots it dead.

[AAABEST]

As usual I agree with you 1000%, I don't trust this SC one bit. They have a long list of horrid rulings.

[Sloth]

You are correct, unfortunately. And the maddening thing is that we have GOP Presidents to blame for this court's makeup.

[Shooter 2.5]

Clintoon confirmed the last two justices. This is his court.

After watching the Wisconsin Assembly last night on the CCW debates, I'm not blaming the Republicans for anything.

[Ancesthntr]

We waited 40 years for a case before THIS Supreme Court? It's stupid.

Hey, Shooter, this is the world we live in. It isn't always ideal - you do the best you can with the cards you are dealt. I very much admire your obvious committment to the upholding of the 2nd Amendment, but I am kind of tired of you complaining over the last several months about this case. What would you have done during WW2, complain that we shouldn't have gotten involved until a year or so later, because we weren't prepared enough to fight? What you should be doing is to roll up your sleeves on this issue, like so many Americans did during WW2, and say "let's finish this thing the right way, even if I don't like the situation we're in." The battle is here, NOW, on THIS case - whether or not you, I or anyone else likes it - so NOW is the time to support the case. I seriously doubt that the antis are anywhere near as fractured as our side on this case - but statements such as yours have, over time, contributed to US being fractured.

Please don't take this criticism the wrong way - I also don't think that this is the ideal time for such a case, nor that it is the ideal case. But such things come along maybe once every several decades in ALL areas of the law, let alone the very narrow area of the 2nd Amendment. I don't think that it is a very good idea to wait and wait and wait - things AREN'T getting better, and may get worse regarding the 2A.

And I seriously hope that you aren't against this case because the NRA wasn't involved from the start. The NRA is an organization that I have belonged to since George I banned the importation of "assault weapons" in '89. However, toeing the "party line" on this is akin to putting a political party's interest over that of the Republic.

I urge you reconsider your views, since the battle is on. Please stop discouraging people from contributing to this case, as it only hurts us. The time for arguing whether the case should be brought is long, long past. The case is here, and the SC WILL decide on Cert. on 11/26. Ideal case or no, it is the only reasonable chance that the pro-gun side has to overturn a bunch of unconstitutional laws. Lead, follow or get out of the way.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

I see a ruling in the SCOTUS to be very positive, no matter which way they decide.

Do they really have the guts to ignore the mountain of fact and history and rule directly against the Constitution?

Let's get to it.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Reminder prediction:

Cert granted.
RKBA held to be an individual right. ("We win.")
Remand to CA courts to determine whether CA ban infringes that right.
CA courts rule it is a reasonable restriction, not an infringement.
9th circuit agrees.
NO conflict (yet) between circuits, so SCOTUS refuses cert.
CA ban remians unchanged.

[Shooter 2.5]

You two haven't been reading the news. The dems are losing on almost all fronts.

All it would have taken was to re-elect Bush, later a conservative in the next term and confirm more pro-gunners in the Senate.

It may have taken only eight more years but we could have solidified our hold on the Supreme Court.

That didn't happen because of someone who thinks a rule either way is a good thing. It's not.

One more time. We waited forty years for a court like this? It's incredibly, brain dead, stupid.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

I don't believe for a minute that the SCOTUS will take the case. I expect we'll get screwed again, as usual.

To me, any restriction at all is much much more than an infringement, but we don't speak english much in America anymore.

I would love to see them take the case and issue a ruling.

Doubt it will happen.

[Triple]

I share your view.

Either way a SCOTUS ruling will help extract us from what Claire Wolff calls the "awkward time."

Regards,