The Supreme Court has sidestepped the Second Amendment AGAIN, denying cert. on Silveira v. Lockyer.
Gun control groups will doubtlessly tout this as “proof” that there’s no individual right to arms, neglecting the fact that that same reasoning would “prove” that there is one, based on SCOTUS’s denial of cert. on U.S. v. Emerson.
Excuse me, but I’m PISSED!
UPDATE: Clayton Cramer comments. He thinks gun owners dodged a bullet, but I disagree. He says:
It wasn’t the perfect case, because it involved several different questions:
1. Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right?
2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment incorporate this right against the states?
3. Are assault weapons included among the protected arms?
—
Supreme Court justices, however, are not required to be honest or consistent, and I suspect that the prospect of striking down California’s useless assault weapon ban would have caused the the Supreme Court to look for some way to uphold California’s assault weapon ban, leading to at least a NO on #2, and perhaps a NO on #1.
Perhaps he’s right, but he also says:
There’s a sequence for winning constitutional issues: win the simplest and least offensive case first; then use then(sic) as a wedge to win the less popular situations.
We’ve been fighting this fight since 1939. How long are you willing to wait, Clayton? Silveira asked those three critical questions. Had SCOTUS heard the case and decided those three questions, then we gun owners would know where we stand, wouldn’t we?
Those are questions I’m losing patience over. The Justices may not be “required to be honest or consistent,” but it’s our job as citizens to hold them to that standard, isn’t it? Just throwing up our hands and saying “Oh, well…” doesn’t cut it. That kind of crap gives us courts like the 9th Circus – the epitome of dishonesty and inconsistency.
Another UPDATE: Say Uncle comments too, and apparently Eugene Volokh had the original scoop.
UPDATE 12/3/03: Publicola comments as well, in conjunction with SCOTUS’s recent decision overturning the 9th Circus’s ruling that 20 seconds was not enough time to wait before jack-booted thugs government agents busted down the door of a suspected drug dealer. Money quote:
I seriously doubt either will have any positive effect on the going on in congress &/or the courts. I don’t think we’re gonna see anything close to freedom unless there’s another revolution. The government has too much of a hold on power & it will not let it go easily.
But I would suggest that if anyone busts down your door, defend yourself. It may be cops & it may not. But if I can’t check out their credentials & read the warrant to determine its validity before they enter, I’ll assume they’re either criminals in disguise or just criminals in uniform & attempt to repel them accordingly.
In summation none of this bodes well for the Republic, or its people.
Can I get an “AMEN!”?