cert denied, Silveira (link)

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/120103pzor.pdf ^

[woerm]

this is not good.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/120103pzor.pdf

per the supremes any state can deny any right for whatever reason their leg can come up with

so long 14th ammendment incorporatoin, so long bill of rights it was a noble and honorable but apparently failed experiment

RIP US constution.

further info as it developes, probaly badly

At www.keepandbeararms.com

r

[The KG9 Kid]

100% expected.

[Servant of the 9]

This has to be the most incoherent post I have ever seen.

SO9

[July 4th]

100% expected.

Yup. And while it's bad for the 9th, not for the rest of us. This case would not have turned out well at the Supremes. Wrong case at the wrong time.

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm searching the archives for one that has less info in the opening article, and I can't find one either. Here it is in "breaking", and not a bit of meat.

[Servant of the 9]

For an explanation of why the Supremes stayed out of this, try this National Review Article.

The Silveira Threat

So9

[michigander]

certs are two, two, two mints in one.

[dighton]

This has to be the most incoherent post I have ever seen.

Not even close. That award goes to the NY Times:

Small b Detonatesand

3 - Run HR xhl(Aaron Guiel's Thre Off Joe Mays in Fifth Ifts

[The KG9 Kid]

"... Wrong case at the wrong time."

That's what they always say about RKBA cases targeted towards the USSC.

There never will be a 'right case/right time' for RKBA, even if we were to engineer an elaborate legal trap.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Worst. post. Ever!

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

The sooner any definitive ruling is given the better.

They will never make a ruling. If it were an honest one, the lefties would stop inviting them to parties. If a treasonous one, it would finally be open season.

[Lunatic Fringe]

My God, your link provided absolutely no information supporting the claim you made. Please learn how to post.

[Pyro7480]

Did you see this blurb in the .pdf?

ELK GROVE SCH. DIST. V. NEWDOW, MICHAEL A., ET AL

The motion of respondent Michael A. Newdow for representation pro se, or (in the alternative) pro hac vice is granted. The motion of Americans United for Separation of Church and State for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for additional time to present argument is denied. Justice Scalia took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions.

[Eastbound]

CLICK FOR CASE BACKGROUND

[CFW]

U.S. Supreme Court sidesteps gun case



Washington — The U.S. Supreme Court disappointed gun-rights groups on Monday, refusing to consider whether the U.S. Constitution guarantees people a personal right to own a gun.

The court has never said if the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” applies to individuals.

Although the federal administration of President George W. Bush has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, it did not encourage the justices to resolve the issue in this case involving a challenge of California laws banning high-powered weapons.

Many other groups wanted the court to take the politically charged case, including the National Rife Association, the Pink Pistols, a group of gay and lesbian gun owners; the Second Amendment Sisters; Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws, and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

“Citizens need the Second Amendment for protection of their families, homes and businesses,” lawyer Gary Gorski of Fair Oaks, Calif., wrote in the appeal filed on behalf of his rugby teammates and friends.

The challengers included a police SWAT officer, a Purple Heart recipient, a former Marine sniper, a parole officer, a stockbroker and others with varied political views.

Timothy Rieger, California's deputy attorney-general, said the case involved regulations on “rapid-fire rifles and pistols that have been used on California's school grounds to kill children.”

Even if the challengers won, there are virtually identical national assault weapons restrictions passed by Congress, he told the court.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the amendment's intent was to protect gun rights of militias, not individuals. A more conservative appeals court in New Orleans has ruled that individuals have a constitutional right to firearms.

Justices refused without comment to review the 9th Circuit decision.

The high court's last major gun case was in 1939, when justices upheld a federal law prohibiting the interstate transport of sawed-off shotguns.

[aculeus]

This has to be the most incoherent post I have ever seen.

Candidate for an Oogi?

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...Justices refused without comment to review the 9th Circuit decision...

They are a bunch of cowardly wankers and were we living in a Republic, they would all be impeached.

[NonValueAdded]

A little context might be helpful in the future.

03-51 SILVEIRA, SEAN, ET AL. V. LOCKYER, ATT'Y GEN. OF CA

This is 9th Circuit case #01-15098 opinion which SCOTUS has declined to review [empahsis added]:

OPINION
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:

In 1999, the State of California enacted amendments to its gun control laws that significantly strengthened the state’s restrictions on the possession, use, and transfer of the semiautomatic weapons popularly known as “assault weapons.” Plaintiffs, California residents who either own assault weapons, seek to acquire such weapons, or both, brought this challenge to the gun control statute, asserting that the law, as amended, violates the Second Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and a host of other constitutional provisions. The district court dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims. Because the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms, we affirm the dismissal of all claims brought pursuant to that constitutional provision. As to the Equal Protection claims, we conclude that there is no constitutional infirmity in the statute’s provisions regarding active peace officers. We find, however, no rational basis for the establishment of a statutory exception with respect to retired peace officers, and hold that the retired officers’ exception fails even the most deferential level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Finally, we conclude that each of the three additional constitutional claims asserted by plaintiffs on appeal is without merit.

[Constitution Day]

"Portrait of the Artist as a Young Bthey"

[Ancesthntr]

"The SCOTUS sucks!" bump