Re: Silveira DENIED Certiorari

"JerryMouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 

> Morton Davis wrote:
>>>
>>> Further, when a REAL 2nd Amendment case (one not based on
>>> cosmetics) gets to SCOTUS, the Supreme Court will have to
>>> take into account the rulings of the 9th Circuit.

>> Why? They are not required to do that: According to Title
>> 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each
>> Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:
>>   "I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
>>   administer 
>> justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to
>> the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and
>> impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent
>> upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the
>> United States. So help me God.'' 
> 
> It is the obligation of the Supreme Court to harmonize
> divergent rulings amongst the circuits. That's what they do
> for a living. 

It's not exactly an obligation but it's usually something they 
want to do, to avoid chaos in the federal judiciary.

Good thing Garwood's dicta isn't legally binding, otherwise the 
USSC would need to make some comment even if they denied cert 
to Emerson, and now Silveira.

________________


ADAMS v. WILLIAMS, 407 U.S. 143 (1972):

J. Douglas (Dissenting)

The police problem is an acute one not because of the Fourth 
Amendment, but because of the ease with which anyone can 
acquire a pistol. A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our 
citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights 
protected by the Second Amendment, which reads, "A well 
regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free 
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall 
not be infringed."

There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws 
governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be 
enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred 
from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a 
State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a 
psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should 
not be barred to everyone except the police.

The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 , 
upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in 
interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was 
upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had 
"some reasonable relationship to the preservation or 
efficiency of a well regulated militia." Id., at 178. The 
Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and 
applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."

"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and 
train is set in contrast with Troops which they were 
forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The 
sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; 
the common view was that adequate defense of country and 
laws could be [407 U.S. 143, 151]  secured through the 
Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." Id., 
at 178-179.

Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second 
Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second 
Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia. 
But if watering-down is the mood of the day, I would prefer 
to water down the Second rather than the Fourth Amendment. 



-- 

Join the NRA Blacklist!
http://www.nrablacklist.com/

The Lone Weasel