[JohnGalt]

Okay, so what is your explanation for why the refused to hear the case?

That is what I was asking.

[Dead Corpse]

They have dodged the issue since Miller. Too much political upheaval if they came down on the side they should. There is also the whole UN and "respect for international law" recently voiced by O'Connor and the global push for small arms control.

The implications are truely global in scope. This does not invalidate the fact that we NEVER should have gotten to this point in the first place. The USSC cannot duck this issue forever. But as we continually see, our USSC is broken and our legislaotrs are pretty much doing whatever the hell they want.

[Texas Federalist]

They most likely refused to hear the case because neither the liberals nor the conservatives on the Court were sure how O'Connor would vote and would rather visit the issue at a later time. Moreover, I seem to remember that this case has a bad set of facts for gun rights advocates.

[tpaine]

JohnGalt wrote:
Okay, so what is your explanation for why the refused to hear the case?
That is what I was asking.

---

They refused because they think they can get away with it.
And every indication is, -- they will, once again.

We see the proof right here at FR, from some of the reactions on this thread.. -- It's "no big deal".. ~??~ I beg to differ.

It's time to make it a big deal, in my book.