Potentially Historic Second Amendment Lawsuit Petitioned to Supreme Court (Silveira)

KeepAndBearArms.com ^ | July 3, 2003 | KeepAndBearArms.com

[mvpel]

The baloon is up - the petition for writ of certorai has been filed in the Silveira v. Lockyer California assault-weapons ban challenge.

Let's just hope that the SCOTUS doesn't come up with a "compelling state interest" to uphold the ban, as they have done in various other state Supreme Courts.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Let them do as they will.

The time aproaches.

[pabianice]

Bad timing. This SCOTUS just ruled that Affirmative Discrimination against whites, Asians, and Jews is just fine and that gay marriage is a 'private choice.' You want them to rule on the 2nd Amendment?

[Dog Gone]

A case like this needs to be decided by the Supreme Court, but I would have preferred a more conservative court to have heard it. A bad decision would be worse than waiting would have been.

[RISU]

Guns are available.

Americans own them.

Dioes it matter what they "rule"?

[Husker24]

The Supreme Court will just say that individuals have the right, but that states can decide which firearms are legal. As usual they have no balls, and California will still be able to ban everything.

[phasma proeliator]

Ping

[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

"Let's just hope that the SCOTUS doesn't come up with a "compelling state interest" to uphold the ban, as they have done in various other state Supreme Courts."

I really don't care what those Depends Pants-wearing old farts think, or say anymore. I believe that the people are fed up and if a future President "overrides" their rulings nobody will bat an eye as long as the override meets with their approval. If the Supreme Court rules that the 2nd Amendment means nothing more than "pumkins shall be orange" and the President won't override it, the people will elect a new President who pledges to do so.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

I fully expect the Supreme Court to screw us on this.

[elephant]

And no kiss, of course! : 0

[MineralMan]

"Let them do as they will.

The time aproaches."

The time for what? You planning to emigrate?

[MineralMan]

The court won't hear this one...that's my prediction. Anyone can file the writ. The court will simply deny it.

[OldFriend]

Heaven help us. This Court is too senile. Stevens, O'Connor, Renquist.......to say nothing of Bader Ginsburg......AAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH

Give us some more Scalia and Thomas justices.

[Crusader21stCentury]

You planning to emigrate?

I think he means what we are not allowed to say here. And he is not alone.
I would just like to mention how the North Vietnamese beat us... politically, by executing the local village leaders. It is a worthwhile approach.

[SevenDaysInMay]

OUR Constitution, THE "controlling legal authority", means what it says, 14th's "equal protection" extends our 2nd's "RTKABA" civil right to all jurisdictions.

The same blackrobes who dictated that the 14th shall not apply to whities are not obeying the very "Law of the Land" from which they derive all of their lawful authority and power.

SCOTUS and hundreds of inferior judges are in clear breech of their oath and term of office, "good behavior" - absoluting including obeying THE "Law of the Land" - RULING according within OUR "Law of the Land's" declarations.

?

Our "living" Constitution is a vague, poorly worded, list of doctrines or sugestions so that We the People could be told what OUR "Law of the Land" really means and how it shall be enforced, under penalty of law by audacious, all powerful judges and justices who tell We the People that they have terms of office for LIFE?

Horse feathers!

Is it not ironic that blackrobes' uniform is the color of tar and Chief Rehnquist's arm bands approximately the color of rope?

[gitmo]

SCOTUS believes what's in the Constition isn't. And vice-versa.

[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

Amen. I wouldn't be shocked to turn on the TV News to see.......

[MineralMan]

"I think he means what we are not allowed to say here. And he is not alone.
"

Well, I was hoping to hear it from the person I asked, you see. Unless you're his/her alter ego, I don't suppose you can answer for him/her.

As for being alone, I'm sure he's not. It's irrelevant, though, since neither are those who oppose the sort of actions you seem to be suggesting. Indeed, there are many, many more of them than you.

[mvpel]

There's a certain subset of gun rights proponents who have the notion that we need to get a ruling one way or the other from the SCOTUS, no matter the merits of the case or the strategy involved in bringing it, so that if they rule the wrong way they can re-enact the bloodsheed that occurs "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

[MineralMan]

"There's a certain subset of gun rights proponents who have the notion that we need to get a ruling one way or the other from the SCOTUS, no matter the merits of the case or the strategy involved in bringing it, so that if they rule the wrong way they can re-enact the bloodsheed"
\
Oh, OK. Well, I'll keep an eye on the paintball courses, then. Sounds series.