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.

[stuck_in_new_orleans]

maybe you shouldn't scream in all caps when you post a simple message

[dbwz]

If you stick your fingers in your ears it isn't so loud. Try it.

[Dead Corpse]

If all you got out of Smith's caricature illustrations was "science fiction", then you've already missed the point.

You are right though, this is for real. This is for Keeps. And pinning our hopes of restored freedom are not going to come from some improbable series of events with todays electorate. Quite often the Best "solution" to a problem would be for government to butt the hell out. If government WON'T "butt the hell out", well... those Founding Fathers wrote that one in there as well. The 2A and optional Rule .308.

With the current, continuing, relentless onslaught of legislation, and now the capitulatory silence from the USSC bench sitters, the cartridge box may very well be the only way for us to restore our Republic. History, as I keep pointing out on these threads, shows this may in fact BE the only way. No one before, going back to Rome, has ever broken the cycle that de Tocqueville pointed out.

The Founders rebelled against the King for less than what we put up with daily. The system is FUBAR. Time to start over again. Maybe write a clause into the Constitution that any legislator writing a law repugnant to the Constitution, or a justice trying to create one from thin air, will be considered a hanging offense.

Maybe that would hold them off for a couple hundred more years.

[stuck_in_new_orleans]

if you click CAPS LOCK until the little light isnt on your keyboard....caps lock isnt on

[SevenDaysInMay]

Blackrobes want the 9th's Left Coast to simmer so the citizens' God-given rights, affirmed by the clear wording of our Bill of Rights, will die down.

SCOTUS has just ruled that our 14th's "equal rights" clause means nothing - to them.

Blackrobes' assault gavels are attacking our RATIFIED Constitution. SCOTUS has been making rulings and speeches stating that they must incorporate more EU law into their decisions. Especially the girls. NOT the "GOOD BEHAVIOR" required of their terms of office.

We citizens must vote into Congress honorable people who will impeach and remove from the courts those who openly attack and undermine our RATIFIED Constitution, the only Law of the Land, Rule of Law, from which they derive any and all of their limited, temporary power. Otherwise, we must rely on our Bill of Rights as written and meant.

Professional agenda driving dastards bet that our Bill of Rights can be nullified through judicial fiat and passing more notoriously unConstitutional laws. To date, they have been correct, always just a few degrees warmer for us frogs. The consent of the governed is being tested by incumbants' tyranny.

IMHO, that is the reason why islamists chose to attack us openly on 9/11/2001. WTC I, TWA 800, and USS Cole did not work because of the Clintons' self-absorbed corruptions.

Americans shall not be disarmed by this government. If Gen. Tommy Franks, Ret., is correct in that our ratified Constitution will be scrapped for martial law when nuke/biowarfare ignites on our soil, then we shall have an exercise in self-government, Mr. Jefferson. This professional, career government is both usurping its limited authorities and refusing to defend our soveriegn borders against the ongoing criminal/islamist invasion.

Self-government is long overdue.

[Stanwood_Dave]

Miller is BAD LAW...If you or anyone else would take a minute of your time, you would see that only one side briefed the court, this was at a time that the cost to file the necessary 40 copies (I believe) cost about $1,500.00. (Remember this is before computer(s)

[dpwiener]

With the current, continuing, relentless onslaught of legislation, and now the capitulatory silence from the USSC bench sitters, the cartridge box may very well be the only way for us to restore our Republic. History, as I keep pointing out on these threads, shows this may in fact BE the only way.

Well, we each have to make our own judgements on that. It sounds like you've passed the point at which you think it's necessary to resort to violent revolution. I don't think we're there yet. I don't think it is fore-ordained by history that we will ever get there.

Obviously one of us is wrong. I sincerely hope you are the one who is wrong, because violent revolution in this country is not going to be pretty. It will be bloody and destructive, and at the present time it probably won't succeed. Most people in this country believe that political changes can be accomplished through peaceful processes, and they are not going to accept or support a violent revolution.

[Dead Corpse]

I don't think we're there yet.

When the simple act of owning unapproved property, like an "ugly gun", can get you killed by government agents... you are ALREADY past that time.

Non-initiation of force is most certainly NOT pacifism. They will kill you for exercizing your RIGHTS. What will it take for you? Them actively loading people into boxcars before you feel they've crossed the line? By the time they come for you, it will be far, far too late. Your neighbors house is on fire right now and the wind is blowing in your direction, what are you gonna do?

You can continue to ignore history all you want. Peaceful means no longer work. If there was a hope of that happening, we would have already seen some improvement. There isn't, we haven't. For every step forward, there are numerous steps back. As some wag once opined, "If voting could change anything, they'd have made it illegal."

No. I don't WANT revolution. I don't want my government to be corrupt and rotted. What I "want" matters little. As for success, people didn't think a rag-tag bunch of colonists could take on the British Empire and succeed either.

[Redbob]

Let the chips fall where they may?

Even when that means a poorly-presented case by an unskilled but publicity-hungry attorney results in a decision that effectively reduces the Second Amendment?

That's certainly letting the chips fall, I'll grant you that.

---

IF we get a second chance, I'd hope to be represented by a lawyer with at least a little experience at presenting cases before the Supreme Court - is that too much to ask?

[Redbob]

"Kopel is pretty clueless."

But apparently not nearly so clueless as the goofball who brought Silveira!

[Redbob]

I'd go further than simply impeaching judges such as O'Connor who show advanced symptoms of senility - I suggest a Constitutional amendment making Supreme Court justices subject to a popular vote, with a limited if fairly long term of office - say, 8 or 10 years?

[Dead Corpse]

Gorski has had cases before the USSC. Kopel hasn't.

Goofball? He had the qualifications you mentioned in your previous posting. Not too mention the amicus and statutes to back up his claims.

Maybe you'd prefer that case backed by the NRA where they are BEGGING to register their guns? Now THERE is a goofy case.