U.S. Supreme Court "Requests" Response from St of Cali in Silveira v. Lockyer lawsuit

[Orthonym]

Yep, Lonnie, you have it right:

The MAIN argument in Congress for passing the 14th was to insure that the recently-emancipated Negro slaves could avail themselves of the 2nd.
I concur, even though, and because, all four of my great-grandpas served honorably in the Armies of Northern Virginia and Tennessee against the ruthless hordes of the evil, tyrannical Abraham Lenin. (I hate DYs so, so, much....) Sorry, that just escaped. I AM surrounded by them here.

 

[Delmar]

Orthonym
Don't be too hard on DY's-after all, Sam Colt, Eli Remington and a few others have provided us all with a lot of fun, protection and a great hobby!

I know some of its kinda rough-some people from the great unwashed northern cities just don't know to leave some of that garbage they're running away from. Hafta ejukate dem.

 

[Ed N.]

Betcha we get a philosophical victory but a practical loss.

Like this:

The Supremes cite all the history of the second amendment, and clearly state that it is an individual right, created so that the states could form militias from the private citizenry who would appear bearing their own arms.

Hooray.

Then they state that, since the militias are under control of the state governments, the states have the power to decide which privately owned arms are suitable for militia use. They'll point out that the colonial gov'ts often specified what arms were required to be owned as well as quantities of powder and shot.

So, if California does not believe that semi-auto "assault" weapons are necessary for militia service in CA, the state is free to outlaw them, so long as the people are not entirely disarmed. Thus CA could decide that single shot .410 shotguns are all that is required for a CA militia member.

This would address the question, not conflict with the history, and effectively leave us right smack where we are.

 

[WvaBill]

To rule that the US Constitution trumps state law:

2nd amendment states "RKBA shall not be infringed" as opposed to the 1st amendment "Congress shall make no law..." 14th amendment should not be necessary. Shall not be infringrd implies this cannot even be claimed by the State under 10th amendment law. Of course, the 10th amendment is not much discussed in my recollection.

This should only be splitting hairs as the BOR was adopted to insure ratification. Most of the framers, in my understanding, believed a BOR was unecessary due to the inalienable nature of the preserved rights.

 

[spookyspiff]

Has anyone read the treatment of this case on nationalreview.com this past week? From that author's perspective, this case is a gun control lover's dream come true. This just isn't the right case for the supreme court. And it would not be a good thing to lose a case that is directly about the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

Let's just all be careful what we wish for...

 

[Gray Peterson]

Has anyone read the treatment of this case on nationalreview.com this past week? From that author's perspective, this case is a gun control lover's dream come true. This just isn't the right case for the supreme court. And it would not be a good thing to lose a case that is directly about the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

Kopel was pretty thoroughly debunked here. He deliberately misrepresented several facts about the case, compared Victor Quilici with Gary Gorski, and said left out something important: Who's helpin Gary Gorski.

That man is Roy Lucas.

Remember the Vietnam Black armband case? His work. Remember Roe v. Wade? His work.

The man gets results, and he's respected by the liberal wing of the SCOTUS. The liberals WILL listen to him, and are likely to be dragged into accepting the second amendment as a strong individual right much like Lawrence Tribe was.

 

[publius]

And it would not be a good thing to lose a case that is directly about the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

Why? Seems to me that governments at all levels already act as though restricting or outright banning firearms is perfectly OK. I think the 2nd says otherwise, but what really matters is not what I think, but how they act. The way I see it, they wouldn't act any differently under a "militia only" interpretation of the 2nd. The only difference would be that we know where we stand as citiz...er...subjects.

Which is better, standing in quicksand and thinking it's solid ground, or standing in quicksand and knowing it? There's something to be said for knowing where you stand, especially if you're in quicksand either way.

 

[spookyspiff]

I don't think it would be a bad thing to lose because things would get worse. I think it would be a good thing to win because things would better.

Meaning, if the Supremes ruled against an individual rights interpretation the laws would probably stay status quo. But, if they ruled in favor, there could potentially be a domino effect of falling gun control laws.

So I think you're only looking at one side. A win at the highest level would be great and it would be better to get it with the right case rather than squandering the possiblity prematurely.

I'll admit i haven't read the thread "debunking" the NRO article. Will look for that next.