Posted on 12/01/2003 8:24:27 AM PST by 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
Don't forget the New Orleans Circuit ruling is still out there.
Name these "stronger cases", and provide a short disription of them. This case concerned the very types of arms that even the worst reading of the Miller case says are protected by the second amendment. It involves the sort that the framers of the 14th amendment stated would be protected from state infringement. The only thing that could have been better would be if it had been a challenge to the federal AW ban, just to simplify the issue down to a single point, rather than the two required in this case, namely "what does the Second Amendment do" and "does it do it to the states via the 14th amendment. There are also alot worse cases out there. Silveira and the others were all good guys, the case that the Court finally takes will probably involve some White Arayan Resistance scumbag who has shot up a church full of kids. You watch.
The 5th circuit courts ruling can, and will, be dismissed as mere dicta, that is language not directly related to the disposition of the case. Emerson did after all lose that case, and his RKBA, forever, for mere possesion of the same type of handgun issued to our troops, when under a boilerplate domestic restraining order of a type routinely issued in Texas courts. AFAIK, all of the other circuits agree with the 9th, that you do not have an individual right to keep and bear arms. So unless you live in the 5th circuits jurisdicition you're SOL. Even here in the 5th circuit, as long as there is a "reasonable basis" for any restrictions, and due process is observed, you're SOL.
This will only encourage the gun grabbers. Expect the new and improved federal assault weapons ban to be attached to some omnibus this or that law, by "unanamous consent", so that the CongressSlimes don't have to attach their names to it. That's how the Senate passed the recent "plastic gun" ban renewal. At minimum expect the current ban to be made permanent and further importation of regular capacity magazines, regardless of when manufactured, to be banned.
The dumb SOBs on the Court can't really understand what they've probably just done.
Assuming I'm decoding this correctly, it is not true as a matter of law. Denial of cert means nothing, except in the particular case at hand, in which it means that the lower court rulings stand. It says nothing about the merits of the case, creats no law/precident. In this case it means we have no individual RKBA, at least in those circuits which have ruled that way, all but the 5th IIRC, and even there it's a weak right that can be abridged on a "reasonable" basis.
As a mater of practical politics, it means the gun grabbers will be emboldened and we can expect a sh*^storm of new gun ban/control legislation, at both the state and federal levels.
Looks like we need a case similar to Roe vs Wade, using the Congressional Report Neil posted here to get around the Doctrine of Non-Incorporation, and blanketing all states with the Second Amendment. Argue the 'assault' configurations later.
I think the SOB's (including all three branches of gov, both main parties, and most state/local govs) really do not think that the good citizens would go to 'extremes' over gun rights. They have successfully changed the RKBA to the PKBA - the permission to keep and bear arms. On paper, they are right since guns are the single most regulated of consumer products.
However, the basic rights delineated by the B of R's exist whether governments like them or not - they have the power to deny these rights, but not the legal/ethical/moral authority to do so. And possibly, if they get too strenous in trying to forcibly deny the right to arms, they might go too far and incur the wrath of not just a few patriots.
Since the 9th Circuit decision in Silveira, nothing has changed in Cal vis-a-vis my ability to purchase weapons; the AW's (@sswipes, not assault weapons) in the state legislature would sure like to write a total gun ban bill, but they are not in a position to actually get it signed into law at this time because of the successful recall election. True, Arnold is not a total gun rights supporter, but the RATs are still in a bit of shock over the recent exercise of "the power of the people". Not that I think they (mostly the RAT party)will ever abandon their desire for total control/tyranny; people are just not going to see what good can come from giving up grandpa's Model 94 Winchester, nor his Remington .30-06. The trick used by the enemies of freedom is to villify weapons like the dreaded black rifle and stick it with a bad moniker - "assault weapon" - and then play up the public relations war with their commie allies in the mainstream media. "Sniper Rifle" just ain't going to cut it when talking about the family deer rifle.
The US SC could go either way with this case, if they agree to hear it, which I do not think will happen. No, the one sure thing about the Court is that most of the associate justices are cowards. Its one thing to put out a half-@ssed piece of drivel about the University Michigan Law School admissions policy, and quite another to set in motion the destruction of the Republic. The majority may be commies but they are not stupid. If they do agree to hear this case, the most likely outcome will be another 'compromise' decision which defines the RKBA as an individual right, subject to a certain level of restriction as to who may own what type of guns, with the government reserving the (unconstitutional) authority to exercise "compelling interest" in keeping certain "highly dangerous" weapons banned. Such a decision might be thought to maintain the status quo, but anything which actually defines an individual right would be good.
No, the request for a rehearing en banc, as well as one for cert to the Supreme Court, were denied. See: SAF Emerson page
You're good. ;-)
And I guess I'm not surprised either with the contortionist antics of the Supreme Court. It has ignored the plain language of the same document for a long time now and instead substituted it's own whim and verbage.
Is it time yet, Claire?
We already have the 14th amendment. We don't need a right or a federal power to enforce it, made up out of a penumbra, it's already there and the Supreme Court is refusing to enforce it.
Personally I'd rather the SC first affirm an individual right, getting that applied to the states should be easy after that.
What I find particularly embittering is reading some of the junk the court did grant cert on. One case could result in a bunch of convicted murders not getting executed, simply because a judge, rather than a jury, imposed the sentence, as provided for under various state laws. This is not a Constitutional question, IMHO. The Court has declared that the penumbral rights of criminals, convicted by a jury as the Constitution specifies, are more important than the rights of upstanding, law abiding, individuals such as Silveira and the co-appellees.
The situtation is really begining to be alot like the one described in this document
As Claire herself stated, if you have to ask, then it probably IS past due time.
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.