What if they started confiscating arms based on Silveira v. Lockyer?

[jimpeel]

Now that the court has refused to review Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002) and it is the law of the land in the district of the Ninth Circuit; what would happen if the police department of Anytown, CA started going door to door demanding the surrender of all firearms pursuant to the ruling in Silveira v. Lockyer that there is no right for any citizen to possess any firearm?

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I would welcome such an act because it would bring the entire argument to the fore. This boil must be lanced, and a precipitating action is necessary. Lockyer would probably do it, and probably has a team in the AG office working on scenarios.

SCOTUS has precipated this confusion by refusing to hear the case

 

[Wildalaska]

What firearms? You got any?

WildidontAlaska

 

[antsi]

< if the police department of Anytown, CA started going door to door demanding the surrender of all firearms pursuant to the ruling in Silveira v. Lockyer that there is no right for any citizen to possess any firearm? >

FWIW, even if the Supremes had taken the case and ruled this way - ie; that 2ndA does not protect the individual's RKBA - that wouldn't mean that we all get our guns taken away without any further ado.

It would only mean that, if congress were to pass a gun confiscation law, that law would not be unconstitutional. However, they still would have to pass the law before they started your hypothetical confiscation scheme.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

If the 9th Circus says that there is no right for an individual to have arms, and SCOTUS does not intervene, what do you think that means? It means that California can pass a law for confiscation. Or any local jurisdiction. Look at D.C. Look at northern IL. NYC?

 

[jimpeel]

antsi

However, they still would have to pass the law before they started your hypothetical confiscation scheme.

Not so. The law is already passed by judicial fiat with their ruling that there is no individual right to possess firearms.

If the police chief of Anytown decided that this is the law of the land in his town, which is located within the bounds of the Ninth circuit, he would be well within the law to do just that. The court ruled that there is no right whatsoever for any citizen to possess a firearm so the allowance of citizens to continue to possess them is in direct contravention to that law. Most who post here would call it selective enforcement.

This is no different than the ruling which now bars the words "under God" from the pledge; but only within the bounds of the Ninth Circuit.

 

[gunsmith]

wildalaska

you are so funny!.... hahahah.
We have more guns in CA then you do
in the "great white north"!
WE have more NRA & GOA members as well!!!
I swear wild!! you are so funny!!! hahahahah
I am laughing it up here ! yuk yuk yuk!!!

But seriously. This repugnant court has precipitated
violence against police officers.
Didn't ATF agents die at Waco Texas???????
I am sure wildalaskA will surrender his arms peacefully
if the ATF pounds at his door,I am not so sure of the tired residents
of CA will.
My brother is a cop,my late dad was a cop.
Dear ol dad made sure all his kids had "unregistered"
rifles and shotguns. Dad would never dream of "gun control"
unless it was a nightmare.
S.C.O.T.U.S has insured that citizens and police die in a fight
over natural God given rights,Just like it did at Waco Texas.
S.C.O.T.U.S seems to want the DEATH of my
brother simply because he would perform his duty of backing up
fellow police officers.
S.C.O.T.U.S would rather confusion reign rather then freedom


Now to answer the question the thread proposes.
How many million gun owners in CA will give up?
I don't know...If 1% of the gun owners in CA give up their guns
"bullets first" how many is that?How ever the situation is even more dire! How many western states fall under the 9th's jurisdiction? Silveira /Lockyer covers all those states so even in the "free states" your guns,freedom & liberty are in peril. The question is what will we all do???

 

[Drjones]

They'd get 'em from me, and I'd be quite happy about it.











.......bullets first, that is.....

 

[alan]

Jimpeel:

Re your question, one can only "suppose" however I suppose that things might get very interesting, very quickly.

 

[geekWithA.45]

If the police chief of Anytown decided that this is the law of the land in his town, which is located within the bounds of the Ninth circuit, he would be well within the law to do just that. The court ruled that there is no right whatsoever for any citizen to possess a firearm so the allowance of citizens to continue to possess them is in direct contravention to that law.

I'm not a lawyer, YMMV, but I'm fairly certain the law doesn't work that way.

For the sake of argument, let's grant that the 9th's interpretation is correct. (We all know it bloody well isn't, but let's go with it for now)

What it says is that the individual right of arms isn't protected by 2A, and therefore there is nothin to prevent the states from prohibiting them as they see fit. In this case, the state saw fit to prohibit military pattern semi-autos, among others. The state did not see fit to prohibit all firearms, however, and has left them to the people, as a revokable "privilege".

Thus, even in this worst case, as it stands, johnny law can't arbitrarily decide to go collecting.

 

[Triad]

Thus, even in this worst case, as it stands, johnny law can't arbitrarily decide to go collecting.

No, but I see no reason why they can't do that if a local or state govt. were to pass a law saying the privilege was revoked.

 

[geekWithA.45]

No, but I see no reason why they can't do that if a local or state govt. were to pass a law saying the privilege was revoked.

Well, laws don't come out of thin air or the king's butt, like in the old days. They come out of a complicated process that takes time and can be interrupted in any number of ways.

The thing is, even if such a law should make it all the way through that process, it still isn't necessarily lawful, valid, moral, or ethical. (all repugnancies are void, mind you....)


If such a law were to be passed through such a deliberate process, with so many opportunities built into it for would be tryants to repent and turn from their evil ways, we can rest assured that those who have done this have truly and intentionally, with malice and foresight, forsaken the people and the founding principles of the Republic, and in so doing they declare themselve fair game; enemies of the People.

 

[jimpeel]

But consider this ...

If the court has ruled that there is no Constitutional right to possess arms, that means that all of the laws that pertain to same are null and void as they regulate a product that is now unprotected. Just because the law states that you must transport a firearm in a certain way, in no way has any effect if you are not allowed to possess one in the first place.

The laws state that felons may not possess a firearm but the court ruling may be taken that no person may possess a firearm so the felon law is moot.

I posed the thread because I really felt that if this were to happen -- a CLEO goes off the deep end of the decision -- that it would aid our quest to finally get a real decision. The court would be left with but two decisions:

1. Ignore the first CLEO who went to the extreme and all others who follow -- in essence this would be a de facto ruling that there is no individual right;

2. Finally give a ruling on whether or not the right is an individual one. In this case, they would likely give an individual right ruling as to do otherwise would be as easily accomplished by doing #1.

 

[Wildalaska]

I am sure wildalaskA will surrender his arms peacefully

Well lucky for me I aint got no guns, and I sure as hell wouldnt be making inflammatory statements aginst da gubmint on a message Board...

WildmyNRAcanbeatupyourNRAAlaska

 

[tyme]

Wildalaska, making statements that are obviously lies is not going to get you in the good graces of the Feds, either.

 

[Wildalaska]

Wildalaska, making statements that are obviously lies is not going to get you in the good graces of the Feds, either.

Lies? Whose gonna say they are lies? Y'all think they are just gonna surprise me? or any of us? Ya dont think we will know when they are coming? What guns? Who said I have guns? Come on in officer, take a look, now guns here...

I will say this..I bet when they start trying to collect 4473s that there is a ton of mysterious fires and water damages in lots of shops.

WildeverhearofironyAlaska

 

[Moparmike]

Ok, for sake of arguement, say they did start arbitrary confiscation, out of the blue. How likely would a suit of "unlawful confiscation of property" be to turn in our favor?

 

[MicroBalrog]

Wildalaska: What about that pesky NFA registry?

 

[Wildalaska]

What about that pesky NFA registry?

Well dang it, no sense lettin the government spend hard earned tax dollars confiscating and destroying weapons, bet the NFA owners just destroy their own weapons...


WildanswerforeverythingAlaska

 

[MicroBalrog]

Wildalaska (turns on bright lamp): "Where did you hide the machinegun?"

 

[Zach S]

Escape From LA rings a bell.

However, if the rest of the counrty followed CAs example, I'd lock and load.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Jimpeel,

Even if firearms ownership is ruled to not be an individual right, we would currently be allowed to own them until a law is passed otherwise.

We don't have a right to own bowling balls, either, but until someone passes a law confiscating them, you can still own one.

 

[ksnecktieman]

I think you guys are missing the point. Not all cops are good guys, or gun rights advocates. Just suppose an anti gun cheif tells his officers. "We have this drug problem over here on tenth and clay streets, we have more violence there on a saturday night than in the rest of the town, all week. I want you guys to knock on the doors, and pick up the firearms from everyone we have disturbance calls on within three blocks of there." And, in the future, anytime you encounter a gun in the course of your duties, confiscate it, under this safety ordinance.

Without the second amendment to protect us, what legal ground are we on? After all, it is "for the children"!!!

 

[dtt]

Not to mention the fact that it would be logistically impossible to confiscate over 100 million, er, bowling balls.
Since so many firearms in the country are unregistered and personal sales in many states are not required to be registered (not to mention gifts/bequests), the govt. could hardly begin to ensure they had all weapons if the rubber hit the road. Then the govt. would have to convince the members of the military, including the National Guard, to turn on friends and family and disarm them. Many would do so, but many would not. In fact, it is an issue that could tear the nation from stem to stern. Best that we never let things reach that point.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

ksnecktieman,

Well one of us is missing the point for sure. A court ruling is not a law, laws are made by legislatures, city councils, etc.

A police chief could no more make a unilateral decision to confiscate all firearms than he could confiscate anything else that is legal to own. He would need a law first.

Even your post indicates this:

And, in the future, anytime you encounter a gun in the course of your duties, confiscate it, under this safety ordinance.

There would have to be an ordinance (ie, law) passed to give him power to confiscate.