Re: Silveira DENIED Certiorari

"Jake T" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Sam Kersh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:30:07 GMT, "Morton Davis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Mike Haas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> The United States Supreme Court announced this morning
> that it has DENIED
> > >> the Silveira vs. Lockyer Petition for Certiorari. The
> Supreme Court will
> > >not
> > >> hear the case.
> > >>
> > >> We should all be thankful for this. For reasons set out by
> long-respected
> > >> RKBA scholars, this case was disaster, now narrowly
> avoided for the most
> > >> part. See http://www.calgunlaws.com/ and
> http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/
> > >for
> > >> articles.
> > >>
> > >> RKBA legal experts strongly suggest that those wishing to
> support getting
> > >a
> > >> Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court send their
> money to support
> > >a
> > >> case that does NOT arise in the hostile Ninth Circuit or
> California.  Note
> > >> that there are two Second Amendment cases being litigated
> in the District
> > >of
> > >> Columbia now, one by the NRA and one by CATO Institute.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Gee, didn't folk just rant and rave about the NRA not doing
> anything in the
> > >courts?
> >
> > Yep.  Most don't know of all the low profile gun cases the
> NRA funds
> > across the nation each year.
> >
> > The Silvera suit just wasn't one of them.  There's people I
> respect on
> > both sides of the aisle on this one.  My friends all believe
> that the
> > Second is an individual right, but they don't all agree that
> Silvera
> > was the best case to take to the SCOTUS.
> >
>
> Sam, eventually SCOTUS will hear a case on 2nd Amendment
> INDIVIDUAL rights.    I fear there isn't a "right" case.
>
> When that time comes I believe the left leaning court  (SCOTUS
> in my opinion will over time continue it's march to the left)
> will say once and for all the 2nd Amendment is NOT an
> individual right.   This is a sickening thought and I hope and
> pray I'm wrong.
>
>
If they do that, the Supreme court will be in violation of their oath of
office.

-*MORT*-