[robertpaulsen]

The Emerson case dealt with federal law denying guns to those under restraining orders. If the USSC ruled in our favor, what would we get -- that a restraining order should have no bearing on an individual's right to possess guns? Whoop-dee-do. Big victory. We're just right back to where we were before 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) became law.

You want Silveira v. Lockyer in front of the USSC, fine.

You know it's not about "assault weapons". I know it's not about "assault weapons". But that's exactly how Sarah Brady and the anti-gun nazis are going to frame it: "The NRA AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WANT TO LEGALIZE MACHINE GUNS!!". And the press will eat it up because this is for all the marbles, isn't it?

If we lose this one, you can cry about how this wasn't about machine guns, or "assault weapons", or even semi-automatic rifles. By then it's too late.

In the future, if you really want to know what type of case I have in mind, don't patronize me with a Ben and Jerry's example.

[error99]

"...In the future, if you really want to know what type of case I have in mind, don't patronize me with a Ben and Jerry's example..."

OK, I'm not being patronizing. I am seriously, and politely asking the question.
What do you think would be the components of an ideal test case?

Thanks,
error99