Skip to comments.
Good news 2nd ammendment case
Supreme court webpage ^
Posted on 11/06/2003 6:29:38 AM PST by 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
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2ndammendment; banglist; scotus; secondammendment; silveira; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-134 next last
To: CHICAGOFARMER
Thanks for the good link.
Blam!
21
posted on
11/06/2003 7:28:59 AM PST
by
lodwick
(Wake up, America!)
To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
"and rule directly against the Constitution?"
In a word yes.
22
posted on
11/06/2003 7:32:42 AM PST
by
snooker
To: Joe Brower
2nd Amendment ~ Bump!
23
posted on
11/06/2003 7:34:48 AM PST
by
blackie
To: Triple
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?
24
posted on
11/06/2003 7:34:57 AM PST
by
woerm
(student of history)
To: Shooter 2.5
I haven't an ounce of faith in Bush or republicans.
To: woerm
Kewl.
26
posted on
11/06/2003 7:40:21 AM PST
by
jjm2111
To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
To: Shooter 2.5
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.
28
posted on
11/06/2003 7:52:24 AM PST
by
MikeJ
To: Beelzebubba
I agree with your predictions. So how does that affect gun laws and "reasonable restrictions" in other states after we win/lose?
29
posted on
11/06/2003 7:56:04 AM PST
by
Sender
To: Sender
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.
To: woerm
Good news? This case could sink the 2nd Amendment once and for all.
31
posted on
11/06/2003 8:41:26 AM PST
by
Redcloak
(Is this thing on?)
To: MikeJ
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.
32
posted on
11/06/2003 8:45:26 AM PST
by
Redcloak
(Is this thing on?)
To: Redcloak
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
33
posted on
11/06/2003 8:50:22 AM PST
by
woerm
(student of history)
To: Redcloak
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.
To: Shooter 2.5
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.
35
posted on
11/06/2003 8:54:37 AM PST
by
harpseal
(stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
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.
36
posted on
11/06/2003 8:58:29 AM PST
by
Redcloak
(Is this thing on?)
To: woerm
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.
37
posted on
11/06/2003 9:02:04 AM PST
by
Redcloak
(Is this thing on?)
To: harpseal
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.
To: Redcloak
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.
To: Redcloak
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
40
posted on
11/06/2003 9:19:25 AM PST
by
woerm
(student of history)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-134 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson