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

[woerm]

quote:
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

Pyro,
yup, I saw and was disgusted...

get a new attorney asap,they can't wait to get to the further follies of the First ammendment but don't bother them with the second or the 4th or the 5th, 8th, hell, none of the bill or rights or the 14th matters to them apparently.

r

[Abe Froman]

I think it would be quite easy to show the intent of the 2nd amendment. Any cursory reading of quotes and opinions of the founders reveals that on no other issue were they more monolithic, adamant, and uncomprimising than the RKBA.

"Every man who is able may have a gun."---Patrick Henry

Any case brought without this evidence is perhaps shooting itself in the foot, even if it should be granted cert anyway. The petitioners should have buried the brief in quotes by the founders.

Notice that the many anti-gun groups are rejoicing that the cert was not granted---wouldn't fair-minded individuals be willing to put the question up for review and let the chips fall where they may? Not the hoplophobes. They know that an impartial review of gun control laws from a Constitutional perspective would doom them. They are aware that they are operating under a false pretense of the Constitution. Any honest clarification of the 2nd Amendment would be devastating.

[woerm]

Abe,

they tried that tactic

look at http://keepandbeararms.com/silveira/briefs.asp

looks like all that effort was wasted on a bunch of traitors in black robes.

r

[Eastbound]

From what I understand, 'equal protection' does not apply to state's that already have gun-control laws. (Doctrine of Non-Incorporation).

That is why I suggested incorporating 2A after the manner Roe vs Wade did in over-riding the doctrine.

Somebody help me out here if I'm wrong about that.

[El Gato]

AFAIK=As far as I, what's the K?

Know

[Dead Corpse]

None of the those gun control laws existed prior to those States joining the Union. Part of being IN the Union is respecting the powers of the centralized authority. This wasn't as bad as it sounds now because at the time the majority of the State legislatures signed onton the US Constitution, the FedGov was tiny and extremely limited in scope.

Now of course, everything is a power grab free-for-all because "We the People" are squeemish about applying Rule .308.

[tet68]

certs are two, two, two mints in one.


Certs are a candy mint.
Certs are a breast mint.
Candy mint.
Breast mint.

etx.

[Eastbound]

Ping!

[albee]

" ...certs are two, two, two mints in one."

Gotta love your sense of humor! LOL.

[Eastbound]

That's because Rule .308 is too verbose and not many people understand it. I think Rule .45 is something we all can work with.

[Dead Corpse]

I'm a "reach out and touch someone" kind of guy. To each their own however. As long is it gets the job done.

[Abe Froman]

Without having time to have read the whole thing, a cursory skim did not turn up all the information I would have included but some of it is there.

In any case I guess it probably wouldn't make a difference anyway. Our goverment has effectively thrown down the gauntlet---they will refuse to recognize that right when pressed.

[El Gato]

Hopefully, we will choose our battlefield and standard-bearer more carefully the next time out.

What makes you think that would have made any difference? It's not like they ruled on the merits of the case. They just ducked it. Refused to hear the pleas of the citizens, citzens not convicted of any crime, nor even charged with one. Meanwhile they are hearing the case of some convicted murderers who are whining because a judge, rather than a jury, pronounced the death sentence upon them, according to national news reports.

[general_re]

Haven't followed this one, to tell you the truth, but if the article in post 6 is accurate, it's not surprising they stayed away. Bad cases make bad law, is the general rule...

[El Gato]

The supreme court has decided to wait for a different test case. Period.

What leads you to believe that? The only "better" case would be one that merely challenged the federal ugly gun ban. This case had everything else. A dispute between the circuits, non-criminal upstanding citizen appellees. On further reflection I'm not sure a pure federal challenge would neccessarily have been better. This way the Justices would have gotten express and affirm federal supremacy, and they always are wont to do that.

I notice that this case was the lowest numbered case of those denied cert. Does that merely mean that the Silveira et. al. had to wait the longest before getting slapping in the face?

[Eastbound]

In that case, may all your Christmases be merry!

[PistolPaknMama]

Thanks for the link! Excellent!

[El Gato]

From what I understand, 'equal protection' does not apply to state's that already have gun-control laws. (Doctrine of Non-Incorporation). That is why I suggested incorporating 2A after the manner Roe vs Wade did in over-riding the doctrine.

I don't understand your point. Roe V Wade (abortion) was decided on the "penumbral" right of privacy, not equal protection. Do you perhaps mean Brown vs. Board? (School integration), which was an equal protection deal. In Brown there was no question of "incorporation" since applying equal protection is an integral part of the 14th. amendment. Most so called "incorporation" has been under the due process clause of the 14th, because an earlier Supreme Court bit the big one and ruled that "priveleges and immunities" meant only those things unique to national citizenship, such as the right to travel between states, or the right to travel the navigable waterways which are under federal jurisdiction. This in spite of the fact that the authors and sponsers of the 14th amendment stated on multiple occasions that what they meant by "priveleges and immunities of citizens of the United States" were those rights protected by the first 8 amendments to the Constitution.

[MrFreedom]

THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/516731/posts

[El Gato]

Haven't followed this one, to tell you the truth, but if the article in post 6 is accurate, it's not surprising they stayed away. Bad cases make bad law, is the general rule...

Sure, that explains it. A case brought by a number of law abiding citizens, and especially outstanding citizens at that, is surely a bad case. They were only a local police SWAT team member, a former Marine, and other such ner do wells. Better some mass murder who wants to assert his RKBA. I guess that will be a good case. </sarcasm

The last time the Court ruled on the RKBA, the case involved a couple of penny anty criminals, who were enguaged in making 'shine without paying the federal tax, just as they hadn't paid the tax on their short barrelled shotgun. And that time, the guys charged with exercising their RKBA without FedGov permission were not even represented at the Court.