[Don Galt]

This case, if won and won well, could roll back not just the AWB, but eventually unravel most of the 1968 acts, the NFA and the Brady Bill!

How much would you pay to see your firearms rights restored in full, rather than just preserve the few rights you have left?

Support the challenge to the Supreme Court for enforcement of the second ammendment:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/default.asp

I think now is a good time, and while everyone's excited about the AWB possibly expiring, this is a more significant event... if the supreme court hears it, we should get our second ammendment back!

Don

[gunsmith]

iirc the "writ of cert" happens and we know if/when SCOTUS
hears case.
personally I pray the Court hears it soon and we win big,I am sick of "sitting in the back of the bus"

[Hkmp5sd]

Barring a self-reversal by the full Ninth Circuit, this case WILL be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Big difference between "appealed to" and "heard by". I'd bet major money the Supreme Court does not accept the case. They dodge straight 2A cases like the plague.

[Kharn]

Bill Lockyer's response is due tomorrow (the SC's docket website (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/03-51.htm) is usually a day or two behind what's actually happened with regards to briefs). Only time will tell at this point, as soon after tomorrow's deadline the Justices will meet to vote on the certiorari petition (assuming they dont send Lockyer a nasty-gram "asking" for a brief and giving him another 30 days). Four 'Yes' votes gets Silveira in, less than that and the petition is denied and the case stands as the 9th ruled.

As others have said, the Court asking for a brief is a strong indicator they are interested and strongly considering granting cert.

Kharn

[Frohickey]

Actually, its better (worse) than that.

As said in the KABA website, the original time for Lockyer to submit a brief has come and gone, but SCOTUS still asked for Lockyer to submit a brief. In essence, SCOTUS is saying 'Dude, we are seriously considering granting cert to this. Are you sure you don't want to say anything?'

[Gray Peterson]

The history of response required motions by the court is that 100 percent of all cases where the court asked for a response when one of the party's refuses are taken up eventually.

[CGofMP]

So does anyone know if our :barf: esteeeeemed :barf: attorney general placed a response?


Charles

[Henry Bowman]

Are you all ready for the SCOTUS to say, "Individual right, subject to reasonable regulation (restrictions). No right is absolute." like the 5th Circuit said?

That's what we are going to get. And then we will have years of conflicting decisions from the various circuits putting their own spin on it, either out of honest confusion or disingenuous agenda promotion.

Mark my words.

[cuchulainn]

I sure hope that the self-indulgent hyperbole that I've seen from KABA and its allies don't poison the well against a positive outcome in this case.

[Don Galt]

I want the supreme court to rule.

There's no way the can ligitimately rule against our position... and when they do, all the gun control laws will quickly fall, one by one. In 5 years we could be free of the NFA, 68, AWB and Brady Bill.

And, if they don't, then it will be the final proof that the Supreme Court has no respect for the constitution and will hasten the enactment of more gun control bills etc.

There's only two ways out of tyranny-- the government checks and balances it out, or there's a revolution.

The supreme court ruling on this case gets us closer to one of those outcomes, depending on which way they go.

But so far, they've never rulled on a 2A case except Miller which was bogus.

And how are they going to find "except for reasonable cases" in the word "infringed"? Infringed is very clear.

Their answer will show the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

Course, they may well not take up the case, which would also show their legitimacy (or lack thereof.)

[cuchulainn]

The sooner that RKBA activists get it through their heads that there will be no revolution -- that revolution as a fallback is at best fantasy -- the better off the RKBA will be.

[LawDog]

There's no way the can ligitimately rule against our position...

Yeah, that's what Dred Scott thought, too. :(

LawDog

[geekWithA.45]

The sooner that RKBA activists get it through their heads that there will be no revolution -- that revolution as a fallback is at best fantasy -- the better off the RKBA will be.

This needs to be addressed at two levels.

The first is that cuchulainn is correct, to the extent that RKBA folks substitute fantasy for taking effective actions that preserve RKBA.


The second is that cuchulain is wrong.

I have complete faith in Americans to resort to the right of armed resistance IF it should become justified and necessary to preserve Life, Liberty and the Pursuit, because if we are ultimately and collectively willing to lay down our arms and kiss any or all of the Bill of Rights goodbye, we might as well signal surrender, march over to the Brady Campaign headquarters and stack arms on the sidewalk today.

If you plan to "harbor the Jews and shoot the Nazis", it' be best if you still have the means.

I also have (somewhat shaken) faith in Americans to prevent it from ever coming to that.

As the dissenting judge in S vs L puts it, (disarming the populace) "is a mistake a free society only gets to make once."

[cuchulainn]

I don't want to hijack this thread any further, so this is my final word on the subject.

Americans will not revolt over rights (and miss the next round of Survivor? Surely you jest). Yes, certainly, at a certain level, any people will rise up, but to suggest that there will be revolution if a court case doesn't go our way is at best unrealistic and at worst irresponsible.

Indeed, right or wrong, the PATRIOT Act has curtailed rights that more people hold more dear than the 2nd (4th & 5th). America's reaction? "*YAWN* What's new at Taco Bell?" They certainly won't revolt over the 2nd, a right that most of them don't care about.

Sorry, on the 2nd, revolution is not an fallback option no matter how much we fantasize about it.

Now, if you're talking about a revolution over a loss of Social Security benefits? That's a different story. ;)

[Correia]

cuchulainn, I wouldn't rule it out just yet.

I don't know where you live, but where I am there is a lot of slow simmering, anger, and discontent. And it has been growing over my lifetime, as far as I can tell. It isn't just about guns, it is about everything. Privacy, security, taxes, land use, private property, it is across the board. Just because 98% of the population is fixated on other things doesn't mean that there is not a large group of people who are tired of getting pushed.

I'm afraid that one of these days something, I don't know what, is going to push these people too far. I'm willing to bet that when it starts it is probably going to be in the West. :)

Personally I hope to never see this happen, I would rather see us win the culture war through popular opinion and law. But I wouldn't disregard the possibility of an actual revolution, it is out there, and it could still happen.

[Kharn]

Lockyer's response brief (http://keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/OppCert.pdf) is now posted on KABA.

Kharn

[CGofMP]

I do not believe that you are hijacking the thread cuchulainn.

Indeed I think that this aspect NEEDS to be brought up and spoken about. Why? So we can take the RIGHT action instead of assuming that 'the people' or 'the courts' will do the right thing.

I am in 100 percent agreement that even if they flat out rule against us that the general public will not do ANYTHING about it. Sure there will be loathing and discontent from the gun magazines, there will be grumbling and complaining at the range, and all of us will get on THR and express to the THR choior our hatred for the system and politicians who have usurped our rights...

BUT - I do not believe that this will be a catalyst for an uprising... as much as the fans of Unintended Consequences or Enemies Foreign And Domestic would like to believe.

Ask yourself.... Should the court rule against us, would YOU personally take up arms and start guerilla war tactics against the politicians, judges, and LE who had anything to do with it? Would YOU be wiling to take action to plunge your city into darkness by taking terroristic steps to blow up the local substation or shut down water wells?

Do you think that this action would get you labeled a hero or a terrorist by the very people whose rights you are 'trying to preserve'?

The truth of the matter is that this society is a comfort driven plastic society where morality, personal freedoms, and 'core ideals' are simply commodities to be traded away to the highest bidder. Sadly, by stealing our own money via taxes, the government has become that highest bidder.. trickling back a pittance of our own money which we are forced to give, the government 'grants us privleges and *cough* financial security *cough* in the form of social security programs and other governmnet 'give aways', programs and 'tax rebates'.

Instead of planning for old age MOST Americans are reliant on social security... and from cradle to grave we EXPECT, nay we DEMAND that our government support us, teach our kids, and GRANT us the left-over rights that do not interfere with the politicians want to consolidate power and be lords over us all.

Be patient.. I am getting to the gun thing... ;)

The problem is that Americans have RAPIDLY lost the eye they had for personal freedom. Since WWII this apathy toward protecting our civil liberties and SELF RELIANCE instead of government coddling has accelerated to a point where NONE of the members of the generations that protected and won those freedoms would have believed their descendants would be so stupid.

I blame the societal revolution of the 60s for a great deal of this.... Too much touchy-feely clintonesque ideals - too much 'if it feels good do it', too much of 'communal responsibility' thinking has truly colored this nations way of looking at things. The acceptance of the loss of liberty for the temporary ILLUSION of safety via the patriot act and all its consequences is proof that Americans will NOT rise up en masse.

Do you REALLY think that if the Supereme Court was to hand down even a RIGID anti 2nd ammend ruling that our countrymen would stand behind us 'gun nut' pariahs?!?!?!

Heck, they won't even stand up for their own freedom of assembly, speech, and press! They won't stand up against illegal search and siezure! Theres no WAY they will stand up against their 'mama's milk provider' government and stand for EVIL ASSAULT RIFLES, SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIALS< and SNIPER WEAPONS.. no way in H will they work to keep their freedoms if their COMFORT is challenged.

So now what?

I read something in another venue which basically said that if the court grants cert on this one that no matter what we are along for the ride.

I agree.

Whether or not we like or agree with Sean Silveira, et al, they have strapped us in and like it or not we are along for the ride. Someone likened granting cert to the clickety clack of the upward leg of a roller coaster once your safety bar is in place and the ride is in motion - you ain't going anywhere... We will be in a similar situation.

I for one am going to wait see if cert is granted. If it is then I will send in a donation. Seriously, if the court grants the appeal then by God we better get behind Sean Silveira and his attorneys, because if we do not there will not BE another fight - certainly not in the near future - especially if the court makes a hard ruling against the *personal* right to bear arms. There will BE no uprising, there will be no further appeal.

Whether we agree with or like the case itself, whether or not we believe this is the right case at the right time.... If the court grants cert, the frigging NRA MUST do what they should have done all along when Calif banned the weapons in question. I believe that if the court hears the case we all have to demand that the NRA fight TOOTH AND NAIL to help this case. The NRA will have to pour extreme resources into WINNING this decisively... if not, they will have lost their best present opportunity, and will lose what little respect I have left for them. Once cert is granted we all need to do our part as well regardles of how we feel about the vitriolic statements that KABA makes about those who are not yet supporting the case.

IMHO We will need to help ourselves or we lose our guns.. it is as simple as that.

You will not see many Americans give up their largess to help preserve their own rights. This may end up being our only reasonable chance for decades. Unless I am missing something, once the ride starts, we aint getting off... we must either fight THROUGH it or we are helping the other side...


Charles

http://www.memorableplaces.com/m1garand/joinordiehalfsize.jpg (http://www.memorableplaces.com/m1garand/joinordie.html)

[goon]

Americans will not revolt over rights (and miss the next round of Survivor? Surely you jest). Yes, certainly, at a certain level, any people will rise up, but to suggest that there will be revolution if a court case doesn't go our way is at best unrealistic and at worst irresponsible.



You are almost completely correct.
The majority of Americans could care less, but there are still a few who do care.
I don't expect there to be a revolution in my lifetime (I'm 23), but if things get worse it will happen eventually.
It may take 200 years, but when it breaks loose someone is going to pay.

And these guys are right. Once the SC issues the writ of certiorari, hang on to your a$$.

[Jeeper]

There is no possible way that any supreme court will ever allow an unrestricted right. There isnt a SINGLE right in our country that is unrestricted. I can forsee and individual right with "reasonable" restrictions. That is about the best you can hope for. I bet the scrtiny level will also be low for laws against rights in this arena. I doubt that they will hold the right as fundamental such that strict scrutiny applies.

[Jim March]

First, I think Charles and his analogy of the upward rise of the roller coaster is on target. Heck, even the NRA has figured that out, see also their last amicus in Silveira.

Therefore, even if technically correct (and I'm not certain either way), David Kopel's critique of the Silveira case was a poor tactical decision at this point.

Second, Lockyer's poorly-crafted response is enough to give anybody hope. My GOD, they're still trying to rely on Cruikshank! What the hell are they thinking? They've also slammed Reinhardt's messy decision which runs completely counter to Fresno Rifle and Hickman. And I strongly suspect Roy Lucas is right about the potential power in those six 9th Circuit En Banc dissents...they're a plea for USSC review stronger than any in recent memory.

Lockyer's Lunatic Lawyers[tm] apparantly believe that repeated chanting of the phrase "collective right" will have some sort of "voodoo effect" on The Nine In DC. Fat chance.

Third, and this is the most controversial: I'm not convinced that even a worst-case scenario loss before the USSC will be an "Armageddon Event". I base that on two factors:

* The results of the recent Ohio state supreme court loss: the Ohio Supremes REALLY screwed us over but good on CCW. So what happened? Ohio gunnies are now energized like never before. The "self defense walks" movement is taking off, open-carry is becoming more and more common, and the legislature is now moving FAST to do a shall-issue bill.

IF the same thing happened on a national level, gunnies getting SERIOUSLY politically active nationwide, is that a bad thing?

* Look at what the gays pulled off - 16 years ago I think it was, they lost a sodomy case at the USSC. They didn't give up, they regrouped, re-organized, got politically active, came back and won this year and won BIG.

Y'all think we can't do the same?

Final thought: the various shall-issue and "Vermont Carry" states are NOT going to suddenly go on a gun-grabbing kick if the USSC rules bad in Silveira. That's geographic and political ground that we now hold - and it adds up to MORE than 50% of the US population and congressional seats.

If we'd lost a Silveira-level case 20 years ago, or even 8 years ago prior to the TX/OK reforms of 1996, we'd have been hurting.

But now?

We hold the high ground, boys...time to attack!

[CGofMP]

Thanks for the praise Jim... It means a lot coming from you.

A couple of quibble points and one absolute agreement...

With deep respect for JM, I opine the following:

1) In the event of a SCOTUS loss to our side, you partially postulate: "Final thought: the various shall-issue and "Vermont Carry" states are NOT going to suddenly go on a gun-grabbing kick if the USSC rules bad in Silveira. "

True enough, and when the NFA act was passed the government did not go looking for every soldier that brought back a auto weapon or every farmer who had bought a tommy gun... BUT if the ATF learned of one of those people having a MG today... god help em. The ATF would gladly kick down a vets door and shoot his dog, wife, and geezer in order to 'protect us' from the guy who had no tax stamp.

While your statement may be true in the present climate in states other than CCCPalifornia, NY, Mass, NJ, etc, a loss in the SCOTUS would give rise to more abuse later on when the climate shifts and people are 'used to the idea' that the 2nd is a collective rather than an individual right which the government can regulate or take away. (insert boiling frog syndrome here)

2) You also note: "IF the same thing happened on a national level, gunnies getting SERIOUSLY politically active nationwide, is that a bad thing?" NO it would not be a bad thing anymore than being able to shoot an invader at 500 yards is a bad thing... but if the writ is issued, better to try 100 percent with NO dissent to get a positive ruling, than to have to fight a more pitched and expensive battle later.... especially in a climate of citizen apathy and with a prior loss in a precedent setting SC decission.

3) Finally you say: "We hold the high ground, boys...time to attack!"
I absolutely agree with you here. We are on a roll with the shall issue stuff, the Alaska win, and the defeat of the gun grabbers in congress a couple years ago. WE MUST KEEP PUSHING BACK the stupid laws that were passed in recent decades. We must continue to gain BIG wins before the pendulum switches and comes back at us with its sharp blade as it ALWAYS does in politics. WIN now, win big, win extra so we don't lose it ALL in the future.

With respect,
Charles

[Moparmike]

You ever notice that our biggest victories are either spun in the press or not reported?

I pray that they rule correctly. It is an individual right.

[Al Norris]

Jim, you posted as I was composing this. Thanks, I agree with your assesment (having also just read Lockyer's response). But I want to respond to the "there will be no revolution" concept that is floating by here.

Those of us in the west do see things a bit differently than the rest of the states. I believe Correia has it right.

In places like Idaho, Utah, Nevada, Wyoming, Arizona and New Mexico, people are being pushed up against the wall and there is no place left to retreat. To this mix, add parts of Oregon, Washington, Montana, Colorado and the Dakotas.

Farmers, cattlemen, and dairymen are losing the battle to live the life they know to foreign imports, which have resulted in lower prices; corporate farmers and environmental extremists.

The people that support these life styles and the men and women that live on the land, are losing what is left of what they consider their right to enjoy the land, to the enviornmentalists and the government itself through ever restrictive regulations.

Land is being withdrawn from the public at an ever increasing rate, thus significantly decreasing the tax base of many small towns. Logging has been destroyed. Mining is on the way out. Ranching is being reduced and the family farmer is hanging by the slimest of threads.

The food most of you now eat does not come from American soil. Most is grown in foreign lands with pesticides and herbicides that are forbidden here. They can freely use DDT and 2,4,5,DT to keep pests and weeds down so they can import to us at a cheaper price. Yet we are forbidden to use the same chemicals. As the environmentalists find something wrong with each new (and more expensive) chemical, we are forced to use the next generation, sometimes at double the cost of the old. But most of America doesn't seem to care about that as long as its vegies and beef are cheap. You folks rage against farm supports. Yet it is exactly those supports that keep these people in business against the odds that GNATT i & II and NAFTA have brought us. We aren't allowed the government subsidies in exports that every other country importing to the US has. This keeps their prices artificially low and ours high.

We are talking about several millions of people that have just about been pushed as far as you can push anyone. We are talking about people for whom guns are a natural part, if not an actual extension, of their lives. Several millions of people are about to watch the exticntion of their lifestyle and livelihood and the rest of this nation thinks nothing will happen? Do you really believe we will go peacefully into the night?

Correia is right. Something will be the straw that breaks the camels back. It could be another fiasco like Klammoth. It could be the breachong of the damns on the lower Columbia river, or now the upper Snake river. I don't know. But it will happen. Too much is in motion already, and then... Then we will have a real down to earth bloody war.

If none of this scares you, you haven't paid attention. If you think it can't happen, you are sadly mistaken.

The really sad part is that it won't matter what the SCOTUS does with htis case, because what is happening here in the west has nothing to do, overall, with a single courts rulling. Even if that court is the SCOTUS.

[Don Galt]

Wow, surprised to see Jim taking this position after his personal attacks against Angel (in another forum)... but I agree with him here completely.

And he's right to bring up the Hardwick v. Georgia case. The Supreme Court ruled that sodomy could be a crime due to "a thousand years of christian tradition". Not due to the constitution.

I cannot tell you how much that pissed me off. And in the intervening years, you have seen a re-energized gay movement. It spured people to act.

As it is now, therei s no clear direcction on the 2A... and so we have creeping loss of rights.

If the court rules against us, then we may have 20 years of growth in the RKBA movement before we get the same result the gays did. Or at the very least it will be a wakeup call.

I don't want revolution--a nd when I talk about revolution, I'm not talking about civil war. I'm talking about a political, economic or social revolution that spurs the country to change for the better. We've had 70 years of fabian socialism and its time to throw off those shackles.

A clear rulling from the Supreme Court-- even against us-- will move many people (not the majority of course-- tehy will always be non-players and irrelevant to the political calculus) from complacency... THAT is what I want.

And that is why I see this case as a win-win.

Plus, I'm tired of watching supposed RKBA organizations do nothing. Its like watching Bush talk about a tax cut while he's spending like crazy and growing the federal government... clearly he's raising taxes on us and the tiny, itsy-bitsy- can't measure it without a CPA tax cuts he's given allow him to declare victory while he works to lose the war. (Just like the NRA and their efforts for the RKBA. ITs pretty galling to see people talking about the spread of Concealed permits as an NRA victory when the NRA opposed states adopting the vermont system. IF the state doesn't have a vermont system, the nwhat Concealed permits really are is gun registration. The NRA supports the brady bill, and supports concealed permits ONLY if they involve registration. See a pattern there?)

I'm not familiar with the details, but hopefully the gays got their ruling on sufficient legal grounds that they can now go after other infringements of their rights -- like marriage, and having children, etc.

This case is good news-- IF the supreme court hears it. The only way to lose is for them to do nothing.

[Brett Bellmore]

Man, I just read Lockyer's brief, and it stinks on ice. I mean, sure, he's stuck with a lousy position, having to defend a view that's objectively wrong, but he could have done better than THAT! Ah, to be blessed with incompetent enemies...

Still, I think the lousy quality of the brief is beside the point. If the Court decides to take this case, it won't be because our side's briefs were stunning, or their side's briefs were pathetic, it will be because somebody has changed their mind about ducking the issue, perhaps out of fear that if they don't jump on a case now, Bush will have changed the composition of the court in our favor by the time the next case comes around.

Now, if the case is actually accepted, then a really good brief might change somebody's mind.

[cuchulainn]

Wow, surprised to see Jim taking this position after his personal attacks against Angel (in another forum)... There's absolutely nothing contradictory about criticising KABA's tactics but still rooting for the Silveira case.

And, for the record, everything negative I've seen JM say about Angel and KABA had to do with disagreements over tactics and behavior. I've never seen JM attack Angel personally, but maybe you saw something I didn't.

[Don Galt]

No problem with disagreement on tactics...on that we don't dissagree.

On the yahoo WA CCW list, Jim and others attacked Angel personally. Jim was the only one who didn't impeach his integrity in the process, though.

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

CGofMP

Since WWII this apathy toward protecting our civil liberties and SELF RELIANCE instead of government coddling has accelerated to a point where NONE of the members of the generations that protected and won those freedoms would have believed their descendants would be so stupid.

It seems like you need to push back the time frame at which most Americans began to take their civil rights for granted. I'm sure it goes back to the 1790's. The WWII generation certainly did, they wholeheartedly supported the wartime internment of Japanese-Americans for example. It's strange how J. Edger Hoover is a notable exception to that considering the gross abuses of civil rights he perpetrated.

Americans have always depended on a small cadre of activists to preserve and protect civil rights. The RKBA groups are today's abolitionists, freedom riders, NAACP, etc.

[jimpeel]

I had a tough time getting past the first two pages. Questions? Those weren't questions and weren't even framed as questions! The author didn't know the difference between a declaratory and interrogatory sentence! Since I read several words ahead of what I am absorbing, I get to that question mark and the sentence reads flat, not with any rising inflection. Sound file (http://www.barbneal.com/wav/ltunes/Bugs/Bugs34.wav)

[geekWithA.45]

Here's the core of the matter, from the AG's response brief:

Indeed Congress, the Courts of Appeals, and state legislatures have all heavily relied upon the fact that this Court has never upheld an individual’s Second Amendment challenge on any grounds.

Whether that's actually true or not, it is the principle upon which the legislatures and courts have operated for 70 years, in the vacuum created by the impression of silence that has given assent to the revisionist/collectivist theory of 2A.

[Jim March]

For the record: yes, I'm upset with Angel Shamaya, with cause. No point in getting into that. That doesn't mean I automatically hate anything he's connected with...I'm nowhere near stupid enough to take such a position.

I don't really know Gary Gorski well. But John Brophy, one of the co-counsels in the case, is an OLD-time CCW warrior from the Gene Byrd/Isleton days...I have the highest respect for him. Gary's OK, he let himself be drawn into a pissing contest with Chuck Michel, but oh well, stuff like that happens.

Charles: we don't really disagree here. I do NOT want to see a loss! My point is that a loss may be survivable.

What's more likely than a loss, is a "weak individual right" decision. That might not help the AW thing, but it wouldn't take much of an individual right (esp. if 14th Amendment incorporation is involved) to cause the courts to support CCW reform in California.

Folks, if we can fix CCW here, it'll cause a major shift. With our population, we'll have 400,000+ permitholders. When those folks DON'T screw up, it puts the lie to the grabbers.

Study what happened in Michigan post-CCW - how that lady AG started out as CCW reform's biggest opponent, but a year after passage ran for governor with nary a peep on gun stuff and picked an NRA A+ rated running mate for Lt. Gov as a sign of surrender to the gunnies.

That's what California could look like. And a lot of the state Democrats would breath a sigh of relief - the ones that want to move to higher national office where Gore-level gun-grabbing is the kiss of death.

Get California off it's grabber kick, and...we win, boys. That's 1/9th of the US population. New York, Mass, New Jersey and such will fall like dominoes.

[tyme]

What a piece of garbage. Lockyer's certainly going to hell for this. I wonder if he's noticed the black robed figure with the scythe who's taken up residence in his office.

When's the SCOTUS going to vote on cert for Silveira now that it's 1 month past the original conference date?

[BTR]

Does anyone have an idea of how long it will be until we find out if the court will take the case or not?

[Kharn]

According to the SC Calendar (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/courtcalendar.pdf), their next conference date (when they handle these matters) is the 31st of this month. The next one after that is the 7th of November, and then the 14th. We should know by then, since this case is already a month behind.

Looking at the calendar makes me want to be a Justice...

I love how in the brief, Lockyer says invalidating the ban wont do anything for the plantiffs, as the rifles they want are already banned by the '94 AW ban. Is he a moron, or is he trying to mislead the court? Or both? :confused:

Kharn

[Tempest]

Is he a moron, or is he trying to mislead the court? Or both? IMO, both. :)

[tyme]

I don't think either is a matter of opinion. :)

[Blackhawk]

geekWithA.45,Indeed Congress, the Courts of Appeals, and state legislatures have all heavily relied upon the fact that this Court has never upheld an individual’s Second Amendment challenge on any grounds.Lockyer just slapped the SCOTUS across the snout with a glove with that one!

It's not that the SC hasn't been asked to interpret the 2A to the Constitution. It is that the SC has refused to do so despite massive evidence of infringement in laws and lower court decisions. Now the 5CA has flat out said RKBA is an individual right (just like the Constitution -- fancy that!), and is in conflict with other circuits.

The bell has tolled, and it's time for the SC to take up the matter -- past time, to be sure.

For Lockyear to point that out to the SCOTUS is amazing to me.

[Sven]

"at issue in this case is a State's regulation of the possession and sale of assault weapons, rapid-fire rifles and pistols that have been used on California's school grounds to kill children."

What the HELL? Rapid-fire?

[tyme]

BTT - today is the next conference date on the Court's calendar. Let's hope they vote to hear this case.