[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[DoughtyOne]

What the court views as state's rights on one issue, certainly doesn't seem to be their take on other issues. It will be interesting indeed to watch this one play out. In a little less than a year from now, I expect to see carve outs a plenty with regard to the 2nd Ammendment.

Broad lattitude is granted the protections of most rights. I'm not holding my breath here.

[bandleader]

Good For Them!I have a"wanabee"so-called"Assault-Rifle".I only wish that I had a REAL one!!(selector switch)

[Redbob]

I felt good about this suit right up until Sandra DAY O'Connor wrote that bit of poorly-reasoned tripe last week.

Now I think we're in trouble.

[mrsmith]

"does the Second Amendment apply to the states in the same way that the First, Fourth, and Fifth amendments apply"
An appeal to the court's 'living constitution' for the right to keep and bear arms! Perfect!

Hopefully when the court points out that the Bill of Rights is only a constraint on the federal government, some will realize that all of the Bill of Rights is.
It would be worth it just for that educational aspect.

[PatrioticAmerican]

One way or another, this issue needs to be decided.

[Southack]

Which mental midget thought it wise to take a 2nd Amendment case to the SCOTUS now, rather than after Bush gets 2 or 3 new Appointments onto the bench?

Do we have some kind of infiltrator who **WANTS** us to lose by going in front of the Lawrence Justices now, rather than for us to WIN later after we change the makeup of the Court?

Or do we just have some pure, Grade A idiots pushing this case now?

[Freedom4US]

"Good luck, Mr. Gorski..."

[MindBender26]

Forgetting the legal issue at hand (NRA Life Member here,) this is a horrible example of a self-agrandizing press release. A press release should bring undecided, middle-of-the-road people to your side, not blow smoke up the portholes of the ones already there!

In addition, he wraps it all in the theoretical, as opposed to discussing some specific cases where law abiding people suffered while criminals ran free. There is no "What's in it for me" here, when the "me" isn't an NRA member or even a gun owner, but simply some working stiff trying the pay the rent, keep his or her job, feed the kids, etc.

In addition, this is mejor mental masterbation for Mr. Gorski. I hope his legal writing is better than his "ain't I great" media contact prose.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

BAD TIMING on this.The supreme court of the United States simply CAN NOT BE TRUSTED to make the correct decision.We really need to wait till the deck is stacked in our favor.

[45Auto]

Whenever something like this goes to the US SC, there is always a danger that the good judges will find a way to shirk making the right decision. They just demonstrated that in spades with the Michigan Affirmative Action decision(s). A five to four vote the wrong way will doom the right to own certain weapons, just like the 1934 NFA doomed the ownership of full auto. Some will argue (especially those who live in Class III states) that one can still own and transfer such weapons, but I submit that it is much more diffucult to do today than it was in 1935.

I predict that if the US SC agrees to hear Silveira, then the decision will be that, yes, there is an individual right to keep and bear, but that the state still has "a compelling interest" in banning the ownership of certain "very dangerous" weapons. They will thereby uphold the California law and keep the door open for further restrictions, and we will be at exactly the same place we are in today, except that now there will be a very bad Supreme Court decision to stand as precedent.

Just like Affirmative action, we will then have the same level of uncertainty in both state and federal law.

The University of Michigan decision has made it clear that the SC has no problem whatever in handing down rulings that not only violate the Constitution (the 14th Amendemtn's Equal Protection Clause), but they also have no problem violating the Separation of Powers in that they amended the Constitution by mandate. A very bad sign of things to come.

[Knightsofswing]

Here is an idea. It is stated that" a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the OF THE PEOPLE, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
It is also stated that we are all part of the NON-formed, NON-uniformed militia, that is by definision all men between the ages of 16 to 65.
But the NO guts SCOUS & and any other gun graber do not want to hear this fact. This was ment to defend ourselves & our country from invasion. [hummmm what about our borders???.......]
I don't know much, but this is what I believe! I am open to any discussion about this subject.

Respectfully
Robert Suchman [aka the old Sarge]
Sgt USMC[Ret]