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.

[basil]

Help me out, here!

[dighton]

cert denied, Silveira

[Centurion2000]

black robed bastards

[Dead Corpse]

Do a self search. You've been ping'ed to two different threads.

[RogueIsland]

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

[basil]

Gosh! I say, slapping myself in the head! You're right, I should have thought of that--

[Dead Corpse]

Not just the 2A, but the 14th as well. So much for our Constitutional Republic. This pretty much kills it.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...Help me out, here!...

It's simple, the SCOTUS is made up of a bunch of weasely skunklicking puke bastards who should be rounded up and deported to Zimbabwe or worse.

[Dead Corpse]

Naw. I ping'ed you in on the one after I saw this thread. ;-)

[Gunner9mm]

Keep and Bear Arms website

[ClintonBeGone]

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

[Dead Corpse]

Kopel is pretty clueless.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

The SCOTUS has two districts, the ninth and the fifth, directly at odds.

Were we still operating under a Constitution, the SCOTUS would be required to settle the difference.

The weakest, most worthless case should result in the second being upheld.

By declining to hear it, they are telling us that the Republic is indeed ended, but they, personally, nine black robed felons, don't have the guts to stand up and say it plainly, for all the sheeple to understand.

[RKV]

I guess I am going to disagree with Dave Kopel on this one. I know of his work and agree with a lot of what he does. My question is this - when is the right time for me to have my 2nd Amendment rights? How long do I have to wait? I live in the People's Republik of Kalifornia. Don't give me that stuff about moving elsewhere. I want to fix what is broken, not run away from trouble. The politicians have failed, the courts have failed. What is left to do? And I do pray about this. I support CRPA and NRA, so my money is where my mouth is. So what now Dave? What is your alternative?

[Travis McGee]

Looks like this is still current!

[BCrago66]

It's a good thing cert was denied. The plaintiffs in the case were criminals, and the 2nd Amendment issue was not cleanly presented.

There are other cases coming up in the federal courts with better, law-abiding plaintiffs and with the issue of 2nd Amendment more crisply presented - see the Parker case in the DC Federal Court:

http://www.cato.org/new/02-03/02-10-03r.html

[Search4Truth]

[larlaw]

The fact that cert was denied AND the SCOTUS failed to overturn Judge Reinhardt's outrageous decision tells me that both the conservative wing of the Court (Rehnquist/Scalia/Thomas) and the liberal wing (Stevens, Breyer, Buzzi-Ginsberg/ and Mama's Boy Souter) were very worried about how O'Connor and Kennedy (to a lesser extent) would vote.

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...

[alphadog]

BRB's for short?

[BCrago66]

Here's the Parker complaint:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/gunsuit.pdf

This is a better gun-right case for Supreme Court consideration because:

1 - It regards the District of Columbia - not a state - thus there's no issue as to whether the 2nd Amendment is incorporated against the states.

2 - The plaintiffs are law-abiding, thus sympathetic.

3 - It regards the most draconian gun-control law possible: The out-law of possession in the home. Thus, there can be no argument that even if the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, X regulation is reasonable regulation consistent with that right. The issue is thus squarely presented to the court: Is there an individual right to bear arms?