Good news 2nd ammendment case

Supreme court webpage ^

[lodwick]

Thanks for the good link.

Blam!

[snooker]

"and rule directly against the Constitution?"

In a word yes.

[blackie]

2nd Amendment ~ Bump!

[woerm]

You are correct,

up or down we get past the "awkward time"

either the constitution applies or it's wakeup time.

Right now I have no feeling on this court, espically after the Lawrence(?) and Michigan decisions.

but then again
what part of
"shall not be infringed"
do they need help understanding?

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

I haven't an ounce of faith in Bush or republicans.

[jjm2111]

Kewl.

[Shooter 2.5]

I'll start pinging you to the Wisconsin CCW debates. Take a look how the Republicans voted last night.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/insession/assembly/index.htm

[MikeJ]

We waited forty years for a court like this?

I agree. I think Dave Kopel is correct when he says that this is a flawed case that is likely to hurt us.

For goodness sake... lets wait until we have a favorable court, and then lets put together a clean, strong case, and lets go into the fight expecting to win it. We have an awful lot at stake here. If we lose, we will have a long time to regret it.

[Sender]

I agree with your predictions. So how does that affect gun laws and "reasonable restrictions" in other states after we win/lose?

[Atlas Sneezed]

It means we follow the legal strategy followed by the civil right movement. Step-by-step. Baby steps. Each building on the last.

The Slveria naysayers are right to advocate this process, but wrong in saying that Silveira is contrary to the process. This case is simply to establish the obvious, that RKBA is an individual right. SCOTUS *WILL* take the case because they can rule this way while not repealing the CA restriction. (See my post above.)

Later, with this element in place, we can fight over whether outright bans (like DC) are "infringements". Then, we can argue over whether AW bans are an infringemnt. Eventually, with a body of law that restores slivers of rights, we may have the foundation to repeal the 1934 and 1968 Acts.

[Redcloak]

Good news? This case could sink the 2nd Amendment once and for all.

[Redcloak]

For goodness sake... lets wait until we have a favorable court, and then lets put together a clean, strong case, and lets go into the fight expecting to win it.

Sun-tzu taught that a successful general only fights battles he's already won. Unfortunately, Silveira's attorneys have never heard of Sun-tzu.

[woerm]

Low order of probability,

blanket refusal to hear, or affirmation of 9th starts a verrry uncivil war with open season on Federal types.

the Scotus can do math too

12,000.000 deer hunters most with high power, scoped weapons, vs
5, or 6 thousand Fbbies, most of whom have *never* qualified with anything other than pea shooters
Check out "Unintened Consiquences"

tap dance previously described, remand for trial, refuse to hear subisquent appeal, etc probalbly,

but only 1/10 of 1% of those 12 million lose patience and the SCOTUS, and by extraction, the FEDS in general loose period

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

The second amendment is clear as day.

Should they rule against the second, SCOTUS will reveal themselves as traitors and may be essentially declaring the Republic at an end, but that is still better than waiting around growing old and feeble until they do the same thing some eight or ten years from now.

[harpseal]

About all I can say for this case is that it may finally give us an answer and end the awkward time. A few more conservative justices and we could avoid civil war over this issue but I am almost thinking the march to CWII is unstopable.

[Redcloak]

This very court ruled that racial discrimination and restrictions on political speech are okey-dokey with them. What on earth makes you think that they're guaranteed to understand what "shall not be infringed means"? The case that makes it to the Supreme Court should be a slam dunk. Silveira is not a slam dunk.

[Redcloak]

What is it with you blood-and-fire types? The idea here is to keep those 12,000,000 deer rifles pointed at deer; not other Americans. Winning a slam dunk case does that. Silveira isn't a slam dunk case.

[Shooter 2.5]

Who and what army?

The 75 million gunowners who expect 4 million to all the work?
The groups that don't want to actually work for candidates?
The gunowners who complain they have to get off the couch to throw away letters from gun organizations?
The gunowners who can't find a stamp to mail a letter to their congressman?

I would write more but it's waste of time.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

The worst possible second amendment case should be a slam dunk, unless the justices commit treason.

Don't think for one minute that they don't all clearly understand the second as intended. An adverse ruling will simply mean the Constitution is irrelevent and the Republic has passed.

In any case, let them stand up and boldy declare it.

[woerm]

That is *exactly* the point,

If the SCOTUS misreads 300+ years of jurisprudence (from the English Declaration of Rights (1685?)) to validate what is effectivly a state sponsored bar to the possession of milita weapons.

It in effect says well STATES infringe away, who cares.
What does that tell the rest of *US*

I'd much rather spend my time playing with my kids and walking through forests looking for deer, turkey, feral hog etc.

If a state can take my property, or crimminilize this right what prevents them from tossing or crimminilizing the rest as well?

?well?

I prefer to vote, I still don't like wasting my time not getting seated on juries (college ed whites need not apply here in glitter gluch), I pay my taxes and expect to be left the hell alone.

a blanket refusal on Cert or an affirmation of the CA statute trespasses clearly on being left the hell alone, as does the NFA and the 68GCA and the 'assualt weapons ban' and the 'no more civilian mfg of machine guns' since what 86?

what rights would it leave our kids?

'shut up and pay takes slaves'

r