Ninth Circuit stays consideration of Nordyke pending Silveira Supreme Court petition

August 26, 2003 | Michael Pelletier

[mvpel]

According to attorney Don Kilmer, the Nordyke v. King lawsuit will be refused further consideration by the Ninth Circuit until the Silveira case's petition for a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court is decided.

Silveira v. Lockyer, challenging the 26-page assault-weapons regulatory scheme enacted in California in 2000, was defeated in the Ninth Circuit on the basis of the decades-old Hickman v. Block case, in which a three-judge panel of that court held that the Second Amendment secures only a collective, not an individual, right. The petition to the Supreme Court was filed shortly thereafter.

The Nordyke v. King case, filed by Russ & Sally Nordyke, promoters of the T&S Gun Show, seeks to overturn an Alameda County ordinance banning possession of firearms on county property, which was enacted with the intent to make it impossible to hold the T&S show at the fairgrounds. It is currently pending a ruling on a petition for rehearing before the Ninth Circuit.

[Joe Brower]

[jdege]

Silveira v. Lockyer, challenging the 26-page assault-weapons regulatory scheme enacted in California in 2000, was defeated in the Ninth Circuit on the basis of the decades-old Hickman v. Block case, in which a three-judge panel of that court held that the Second Amendment secures only a collective, not an individual, right.

Hickman v. Block did not find for a collective right.

In Silveira v. Lockyer, the Ninth describes three alternative interpretations, the "Collective Right", the "Individual Right", and, IIRC, the "Limited Individual Right".

The last is the idea that an individual has a right to keep and bear arms, but only for arms that are of utility to the militia.

Miller found for a limited individual right, as did the 19th century case SCOTUS used as precedent. (Said case being the only prior case that did not find for an unlimited individual right.

In any case, Hickman v. Block very clearly finds for a limited individual right, citing Miller. The language from Hickman v. Block that the Ninth cites in Silveira v. Lockyer is very explicit in supporting a limited individual right - to which the Ninth responds "it's clear we weren't supporting an unlimited individual right".

Which is true.

But once they're past the actual cite, they just assume, contrary to any evidence, that Hickman v. Block is a finding of a collective right. Which they need to do, in order to continue a ban on weapons that are so clearly of utility to the militia as those covered by the AWB.

But it's not only a lie, it's a blatantly obvious one.