U.S. Supreme Court Deals Major Blow to NRA's View of the Second Amendment
Press Release
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
united with the Million Mom March
1225 Eye Street, NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
www.bradycenter.org
Contact:
Rob Wilcox
202-898-0792
Court Denies Review of Key Gun Case
Washington, DC - This morning, the United States Supreme Court refused to
hear a Second Amendment challenge to California's strongest-in-the-nation
Assault Weapons Ban. The High Court's action leaves undisturbed an
earlier ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, in Silveira v. Lockyer, upholding the California statute and
ruling that the Second Amendment confers a right to possess and use
firearms only in connection with state militia activities. The National
Rifle Association had filed a "friend of the court" brief asking the U.S.
Supreme Court to review the Silveira decision, but the Court has declined.
"The action of the United States Supreme Court today in denying review of
the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Silveira v. Lockyer repudiates the extremist
gun lobby and others who view the Second Amendment as a weapon against
reasonable gun laws," said Dennis Henigan, Director of the Brady Center's
Legal Action Project. "It remains true that never in our nation's history
has a federal court struck down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds."
Since a panel of the Fifth Circuit broke from precedent two years ago in
United States v. Emerson, to rule that the Second Amendment confers an
individual right to firearms ownership, every federal district and
appellate court ruling - more than 20 in all - has rejected its reasoning
and the NRA's view, and has held that the Second Amendment does not
provide individuals with a right to possess firearms absent a relationship
with a state militia. Even the Fifth Circuit in the Emerson case, despite
endorsing the individual rights view, upheld the particular gun law under
attack. "With today's actions by the Supreme Court, the gun lobby
continues its unbroken string of defeats in Second Amendment challenges to
gun laws," Henigan added. "There is no more settled area of
constitutional law."
The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case comes as debate intensifies
in the U.S. Congress over the expiration, in November of next year, of the
federal Assault Weapon Ban. Due to a 10-year sunset provision in the
federal statute, it will come to an end unless Congress acts to renew it.
Said Mr. Henigan: "It is now settled that there is no constitutional
right to own UZIs and AK-47s. The NRA's distortion of constitutional
principles has been exposed for the fraud that it is."
The Silveira decision also marks the sixth defeat for legal challenges to
California's Assault Weapons Ban, originally passed in 1989 and
strengthened since. The NRA first challenged the Assault Weapon Act on
Second Amendment grounds in 1989, shortly after the law was enacted
following a massacre on a Stockton schoolyard in which 34 children were
shot. The NRA's lawsuit, Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club v. Van de Kamp, was
rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Although the
NRA used the promise of a legal challenge to the law to raise money in
mass fundraising appeals, the NRA simply dropped the case in 1992 rather
than appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Since its inception in 1989, the Legal Action Project of the Brady Center
has filed amicus curiae briefs in state and federal courts across the
nation, defending gun laws and exposing the gun lobby's constitutional
distortions. For more information about the Second Amendment, legal
challenges to gun laws, and the Silviera case, visit the Legal Action
Project's web site at www.gunlawsuits.org
Date of Release: December 1, 2003
Press Release
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
united with the Million Mom March
1225 Eye Street, NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
www.bradycenter.org
Contact:
Rob Wilcox
202-898-0792
Court Denies Review of Key Gun Case
Washington, DC - This morning, the United States Supreme Court refused to
hear a Second Amendment challenge to California's strongest-in-the-nation
Assault Weapons Ban. The High Court's action leaves undisturbed an
earlier ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, in Silveira v. Lockyer, upholding the California statute and
ruling that the Second Amendment confers a right to possess and use
firearms only in connection with state militia activities. The National
Rifle Association had filed a "friend of the court" brief asking the U.S.
Supreme Court to review the Silveira decision, but the Court has declined.
"The action of the United States Supreme Court today in denying review of
the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Silveira v. Lockyer repudiates the extremist
gun lobby and others who view the Second Amendment as a weapon against
reasonable gun laws," said Dennis Henigan, Director of the Brady Center's
Legal Action Project. "It remains true that never in our nation's history
has a federal court struck down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds."
Since a panel of the Fifth Circuit broke from precedent two years ago in
United States v. Emerson, to rule that the Second Amendment confers an
individual right to firearms ownership, every federal district and
appellate court ruling - more than 20 in all - has rejected its reasoning
and the NRA's view, and has held that the Second Amendment does not
provide individuals with a right to possess firearms absent a relationship
with a state militia. Even the Fifth Circuit in the Emerson case, despite
endorsing the individual rights view, upheld the particular gun law under
attack. "With today's actions by the Supreme Court, the gun lobby
continues its unbroken string of defeats in Second Amendment challenges to
gun laws," Henigan added. "There is no more settled area of
constitutional law."
The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case comes as debate intensifies
in the U.S. Congress over the expiration, in November of next year, of the
federal Assault Weapon Ban. Due to a 10-year sunset provision in the
federal statute, it will come to an end unless Congress acts to renew it.
Said Mr. Henigan: "It is now settled that there is no constitutional
right to own UZIs and AK-47s. The NRA's distortion of constitutional
principles has been exposed for the fraud that it is."
The Silveira decision also marks the sixth defeat for legal challenges to
California's Assault Weapons Ban, originally passed in 1989 and
strengthened since. The NRA first challenged the Assault Weapon Act on
Second Amendment grounds in 1989, shortly after the law was enacted
following a massacre on a Stockton schoolyard in which 34 children were
shot. The NRA's lawsuit, Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club v. Van de Kamp, was
rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Although the
NRA used the promise of a legal challenge to the law to raise money in
mass fundraising appeals, the NRA simply dropped the case in 1992 rather
than appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Since its inception in 1989, the Legal Action Project of the Brady Center
has filed amicus curiae briefs in state and federal courts across the
nation, defending gun laws and exposing the gun lobby's constitutional
distortions. For more information about the Second Amendment, legal
challenges to gun laws, and the Silviera case, visit the Legal Action
Project's web site at www.gunlawsuits.org
Date of Release: December 1, 2003