SO9
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.
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.
Hey supremes, did you assholes ever read this???
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Click here to read the report BY THE SENATE that finds an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms
"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."
"The Era of Osama lasted about an hour, from the time the first plane hit the tower to the moment the General Militia of Flight 93 reported for duty." 
Toward FREEDOM
Bill of Rights supporters will migrate to regions of the US where the Bill is supported. Marxists and cowards will migrate to areas under Marxist rule. The "two nations of Bush and Gore" just got a lot more polarized.
Since such polarization favors freedom supporters, the Dems/Liberals just lost more ground for 2004 and after. Marxists will find themselves confined to the remaining Dem/Marxist urban areas, which are shrinking in size and electoral power. Excellent.
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.
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.
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?