Supreme Court Sidesteps Gun Rights Case

Newsday ^ | December 1, 2003 | Gina Holland

[MikeJ75]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court disappointed gun owner groups Monday, refusing to consider whether the Constitution guarantees people a personal right to own a gun.

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

Although the Bush administration 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.

[blackie]

Be Well ~ Be Armed ~ Be Safe ~ Molon Labe!

[Dead Corpse]

Because there is more stuff just like this coming down the pipe to a Legislature near you.

Is that reason enough for you?

[Squantos]

This refusal speaks volumes IMHO......The RKBA is one they know the answer to so they are just keep the socialist fiasco alive an well a little longer........ names added to the list !

Stay Safe !

[El Gato]

Question for the group. What is the Supreme Court procedure for deciding whether to grant cert or not? Is it a majority vote, or a large minority, or just one justice insisting the case be heard? What? If a vote, is there anyway to find out which way each justice voted? If not a vote, are the proceedings at least recorded so that we can see who argued for and against granting cert, and what their arguments were? Are the Justices free to speak on the matter now that cert has been denied? Is all we will get is "Cert Denied..BANG..next case"?

This action is really sick. The briefs for the appellees, including the several of the friend of the court briefs, were really good, with lots of detail. The response brief for the State of California contained mistatements of legal facts concerning the previous Supreme Court case, "Miller", which was pointed out for the court in the reply brief to that.

[Travis McGee]

The Supremes are just cowards in the end. They are deathly afraid of the consequences of coming down against the individual rights interpretation, and are also unwilling to declare a wide-open RKBA. They just want to kick the can down the road. So one or two new justices will get to choose.... if they dare.

[45Auto]

This comes as no surprise to those who understand the sniveling, cowardly nature of at least 7 of the current SC justices. There remains some potentially interesting near-term possibilities , however. There is another pending case being fought by Halbrook and the NRA - the D.C. gun ban case. The crux of Dave Kopel's objections to Silviera is that it might have screwed up the D.C. case. He could be right as that one might have more of a basis to actually address the 2nd. I have not followed it closely, but it probably will be heard by the 2nd Circuit. The case could become moot, however, if pending federal legislation overturns the D.C. ban.

The failure of the US SC to address Silviera might lend fuel for the renewal of the federal AW ban, pending before Congress. The RINO establishment and even our beloved president are for it. It remains to be seen if House leadership will kill the damn thing.

Now that Silveira has more or less been established as "good" law in the states under the 9th Circuit, will the AW's (@sswipes, not assault weapons) in the Cal legislature (or other states) attempt to pass an outright total gun ban? Or a ban on the dreaded "handguns"?

[45Auto]

What is the Supreme Court procedure for deciding whether to grant cert or not?

I think that 4 of the 9 justices ahve to agree to hear the case.

[harpseal]

The SCOTUS could have taken this case and made a landmark ruling that would resolve the difference between two circuits but they chose to postpone for political reasons.

[45Auto]

Yes, you are exactly right. Cowards with a capitol "C". As we discussed last week, its one thing to find that butt-boys are O.K., or that sometimes race can be a factor in law school admissions, and quite another thing to set in motion the destruction of the Republic. Except for Scalia and Thomas, (and maybe Rehnquist) the rest know what the 2nd means, so don't want to "rock the boat", keeping the status quo and the host of (unconstitutional) state and federal gun laws intact.

[MrFreedom]

Although the Bush administration 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.

That said it all

[FirstPrinciple]

What the hell are high-powered weapons. I get so mad listening to the main-stream press make up words for everyday guns to scare off non-gun owners. This is how they create issues. Can someone email the author of this article and ask what the hell high-powered weapons are? At the same time, someone email the solicitor general's office and ask him if he supports the Constitution.

[Let's Roll]

No it isn't. Timing is everything. We have to have a conservative court to rule on these issues or banning assault weapons will be the least of our worries - they will take all of our firearms.

Is that reason enough for you?!

[jdege]

The SCOTUS could have taken this case and made a landmark ruling that would resolve the difference between two circuits but they chose to postpone for political reasons.

The justice's aren't ignorant. They know perfectly well that there's a much cleaner 2nd Amendment case heading their way - Parker v. District of Columbia

[FirstPrinciple]

Pray and pray hard then. We haven't had a conservative court - by your definiton, in generations. Red Sox will win the World Series before we get a conservative court.

[MrFreedom]

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

[Dead Corpse]

No. 70 years they have had to straighten this crap out. I am not willing to wit until some ephemeral set of conditions are "just right".

When was the last time we had a "Conservative" Court? Hell, we've got both houses of Congress and the Presidency and we can't even get replacement judges VOTED ON, much less approved.

[Joe Brower]

With every passing year lacking a clear-cut decision either way on the RKBA, with every cert denied, the viability of the SCOTUS becomes less and less. At the same time, the temperature inside the pressure cooker continues to build, making the eventual detonation when it finally can hold no longer that much more potent and destructive.

We live in interesting times, gentlemen. And they will get even more interesting before all is said and done.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

The best case in the history of the world will not move the SCOTUS if they insist on treason.

The worst case would not matter if they insisted on the truth.

Let them try to take our weapons. It's the only way the turds will ever learn.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Question for the group. What is the Supreme Court procedure for deciding whether to grant cert or not? Is it a majority vote, or a large minority, or just one justice insisting the case be heard? What? If a vote, is there anyway to find out which way each justice voted? If not a vote, are the proceedings at least recorded so that we can see who argued for and against granting cert, and what their arguments were? Are the Justices free to speak on the matter now that cert has been denied? Is all we will get is "Cert Denied..BANG..next case"?

A list of cases is circulated that will be voted on on a given day. Any 1 Justice can ask that a case on that list be discussed; if no one lists a case for discussion it is automatically recorded as "cert. denied." If a case is discussed, a formal vote is taken by the Chief justice, but not published; it takes the votes of 4 of the 9 Justices to grant cert. If fewer than 4 voted to grant cert., they can choose to be listed as dissenting from the denial. Sometimes a Justice will write an opinion dissenting from the denial, explaining why he or she thought cert. should be granted. (Very infrequently, a justice will publish an opinion explaining why they voted not to grant cert.) In this case, the court's order merely says "Petition for a writ of certiorari denied," which may mean there were no votes in favor, though I'd be surprised if it wasn't at least discussed..

[harpseal]

The choice not to decide is a choice to postpone becuasde they think it will be decided by overwhelming public opinion. [IMHO they think the public will say ban all guns after soem tragedy] The expolsion will come however but that is okay far better to go out with a bang than a whimper.

The hypocracy of seeing penumbras when the back and white issue of the Second Ammendment is beyond ludicrous.