SUPREME COURT WILL NOT HEAR SILVEIRA v LOCKYER

Telephone Call from CBS ^ | 12-01-03 | basil

[basil]

Second Amendment Sisters just received a phone call from CBS news wanting our take on the fact that the Supreme Court will not hear Locklear V Silveria. Can anybody fill in here? I did a search, and don't see it yet posted on FR.

[Centurion2000]

It takes 4 Justices to grant cert; The fact that this case was not accepted indicates that it is likely that once again O'Connor was the pivotal Justice who has again effectively moved our country further to the left with her own erratic voting tendencies; Perhaps in the long run it is better that this case was NOT accepted, given that the conservatives on the Court might very well have been convinced that O'Connor might have voted to uphold the 9th Circuit given her sharp turn to the Left last term; Another reason why it is SO important that W. gets re-elected to appoint her replacement...

To tell you the truth it's time they heard one anyway ..... let the chips fall where they may to one side or the other ... at least it will finally be open that the feds have decided to scrap the Constitution.

[Dead Corpse]

Draconian? How about California's outlawing your possession of something that was legal when you bought it?

Not only that, but the 9th Circus shot down the 14th Amendment as well as it's denial of the scope of the 2nd.

[Teacher317]

Feh. We right-wing gun nuts had our case in 1934 with Miller, an unassailably fair and logical decision and court proceeding. How dare we look for a second review? I mean, how much has the law regarding gun ownership really changed since 1933? We should bother the Supreme Court with such Constitutional trifles more than once per century, right?

.

If you can't see the bitter venom-dripping bleeding-from-the-eyes sarcasm, you need a better optician.

[alphadog]

Instead of "Black Robed Bastards" how about giving new meaning to FJB...for example... F!@#$%g JUDICIAL BASTARDS"

[CDHart]

Maybe it's just as well. At least the matter is still debatable, rather than denied.

Carolyn

[aomagrat]

The supreme court knows that the 2nd Amendment says that the people have the right to own firearms. However actually ruling so would go against their political agenda, so they refuse to hear the case.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Big friggin deal.

If the SCOTUS insists on treason, the best case in history will not move them.

If they insist on upholding the Constitution and their oaths, the feeblest case would be easily upheld, as the truth is plain.

Only treason could deny it.

[Teacher317]

Basil, the link in post #12 is a great place to start... just skip the first 4 paragraphs where he's preening himself with his accomplishments, then you'll get to the Silveria analysis. Work from that, and you should be able to respond to *spit* CBS articulately.

[BurbankKarl]

Heather Locklear?

[Thud]

Gays made the same mistake with Hardwick v. Bowers. It was the wrong case to use as a test, and the attorneys handling the appeal screwed it up badly.

Tell them this: "In short, the Silveira attorney led with his (and our) chins. He brought a foolish case, and persisted even when it was clear that he had no reasonable chance of success on appeal. His failure to file a reply brief was terrible. The fruit of his labor is a horrendous Ninth Circuit opinion which will harm the Second Amendment for years to come." -- David Kopel

[SCR1]

In the 9th Circuit that is no longer case. A person can now NOT claim they have an individual right to keep and bear arms. It has been effectively erased from the Constitution there.

The only Circuit that may not look favorably on the 9th Circuit decision is the 5th Circuit.

[dpwiener]

Kopel is pretty clueless.

No, Kopel is exactly right. Silveria has already screwed us here in California by doing a lousy job of bringing a terrible case, which the liberal judges on the 9th Circuit Court gleefully took advantage of to produce a diametrically opposing opinion to Emerson.

If the U.S. Supreme Court had taken this case, the odds are that it would have ended up badly damaging or totally eviscerating the Second Amendment. Now at least we have a chance that some other, better case will work itself up to the USSC, and allow them to rule that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. That would instantly overturn the 9th Circuit's decision and be effective throughout the country.

Our best hope for a favorable RKBA outcome is that Bush, aided by a more-heavily Republican Senate, will appoint some new Supreme Court judges during his second term who will respect the clear wording of the Second Amendment. Consequently I will not be unhappy if it takes another 4 or 5 years for the right case to make it to the Supreme Court.

Is that a long time to wait for our rights to be acknowledged and restored? Of course. But that's a hell of lot better than rushing things and ending up with a definitive decision that crushes our rights for many decades to come.

[Dead Corpse]

Bush can't get so much as an up/down vote on ANY of his judicial nominees and you are delusional enough to think that the gun grabbers will sit still for ANOTHER Presidential term without trying to pass STILL MORE un-Constitutional legislation?

If the USSC can't even be bothered to hear a case of CLEAR conflict between two lower Circuit Courts, what in Blue Flaming Hell makes you think you'll even GET a better chance?

[ctdonath2]

How far has Parker gone?

[Servant of the 9]

So, the Supremes ducked another 2nd Amendment case. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

Good thing they did us that favor.
This case was so poorly put together it was a sure looser regardless of the merits.

For an explanation of why the Supremes stayed out of this, try this National Review Article.

The Silveira Threat

So9

[RogueIsland]

I was actually one of the ones who was quite nervous about how this court would rule on this case.

[Dead Corpse]

Post #12 has a link to the refutation of Kopel's slander.

[BCrago66]

Here's the Parker file - the pleadings. Sometimes the PDF files don't open when you click on them - so you have to save the file then open it from your hardrive. The plaintiffs have already moved for summary judgment - as it seems there are no material facts in dispute.

http://www.alangura.com/parker/

I have to go now, but you can Google Parker and "2nd Amendment" and "District of Columbia" to get information on the case.

[MrFreedom]

We now have a United Nation Supreme Court
a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a325b3f5d31.htm
Annan in historic meeting with Supreme Court &Congress/is believed to be unprecedented.http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0c30a81760.htm

[MrFreedom]

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