I'm still holding MY breath...

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by armedandsafe, May 18, 2003.

  1. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    http://www.sierratimes.com/03/05/15/carlworden.htm

    Will The Supreme Court Hear Silveira v. Lockyer?
    By Carl F. Worden

    Anyone who has been paying attention at all, knows the United States Supreme Court has carefully dodged every opportunity to decide, once and for all, whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, or a collective right of the states to maintain independent and armed state militias.

    Look, come off it: Every honest scholar, and a few flaming liberals who have studied the issue, including Laurence Tribe, know the Founding Fathers deliberately intended for the citizens to be individually guaranteed the right to arms as a last resort -- a tool with which to successfully revolt and defend against a future government that might seize power and violate the Constitution at will – you know, like the present – like, right now??


    For you mindless Bush-lovers, get with the program: Your guy is one of the worst offenders of the United States Constitution who has ever occupied the Oval Office, bar none, and that includes that most fiendish replica of an American citizen and president, William Jefferson Clinton. If you haven’t figured that out yet, then you are even more stupid that those mindless crazies who worshipped Clinton no matter what he did. In fact, you are worse, because you know better!


    So we have this crisis looming on the horizon of American jurisprudence that threatens the powers that be. The last time the U.S. Supreme Court had the opportunity to rule straight up or down on the Second Amendment was the Emerson Case. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled overwhelmingly that an individual had the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. But that Court also ruled that Emerson could be denied his right to arms under the circumstances of the case. As a result, Emerson asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the issue, which the Supremes predictably rejected and let the lower court decision stand.


    Now, how is it that Carl Worden can state the Supreme Court was entirely predictable in refusing to review the Emerson Case on pure Second Amendment grounds? Hey, it was easy: Just look back.


    The Supreme Court of the United States has had many opportunities to finally settle the question of the Second Amendment, but they have always nibbled away at the edges of the issue, without diving in, eating the whole thing and getting it over with. Why? Well, we have this here situation where the controlling government is walking a tightrope. They don’t want the Supremes to rule that the individual has the right to keep and bear arms, because that would strip states like New York, and even closer to home, the District of Columbia, of the authority to ban virtually all personal, let alone concealed, handguns. In our controlling government’s opinion, the more state-sponsored sanctions against guns in one form or another, the better for them, because then it’s not the federal government banning those weapons – it’s the states. That’s where the looming decision involving Silveira v. Lockyer comes in. Here we have the Fifth Circuit ruling in the Emerson Case that the individual most certainly is guaranteed the right to personal arms, while the Ninth Circuit ruled the Second Amendment is a “collective” right only for the state militia in the Silveira v. Locker Case.


    The Supreme Court of the United States has handily avoided a straight up-or-down decision on the Second Amendment, because if and when they are pushed up against the wall and forced to produce, they will rule against our individual right to possess guns.


    They will make that ruling, not on the basis of all those hundreds of supporting documents and comments written by the Founding Fathers to the contrary, but to preserve and protect the existing and controlling government of the United States. When they issue that ruling, if and when they must, they know they are risking an armed revolt on the spot, but they are hoping the American population will absorb the shock. Up to that point, the Supremes intend to avoid an up-or-down ruling on the Second Amendment indefinitely – and now you know why.


    If it were my money on the table, I would think it safe.


    But you never know. A Supreme Court decision contrary to the plain understanding of the Second Amendment, even if it was a 5-4 decision, could spark an armed revolt. It didn’t happen when God and prayer were kicked out of school. It didn’t happen when it became legal for a woman to kill her unborn baby for no better reason than personal convenience. But when it comes to manly play-toys like guns, hey, Katie bars the door!


    In my dreams! Our gutless, spineless and perverse citizens in 2003?? No, I don’t think so. The only thing that gets the average American off the couch nowadays is pizza delivery.


    The Silveira v. Lockyer case will be the Supreme Court decision of the century – IF the Supreme Court decides to hear it. The basis of the lawsuit is that states like California do not have the right to usurp federal constitutional law with regard to their citizen’s right to bear arms. If they refuse to rule on the case, the Supreme Court will have stated that the states have the right to prohibit the citizens from bearing arms by state authority over that of the Constitution itself. Crazier things have happened.


    No, I don’t know how this mess is going to turn out, but I suspect that the Supreme Court will do one of two things in response to this imminent challenge: They will either refuse to hear the case, letting California’s authority to override the federal Constitution stand, or they will hear the case, and rule that the individual does not have the right to personal arms under the Second Amendment.


    I sincerely hope I am wrong on both counts. Call me crazy.


    Carl F. Worden


    The Sierra Times maintains its operation only by our sponsors and our readers. As always, any contribution is desperately needed and always accepted. Thank you.

    Visa, Master Card, and Paypal Contributions accepted




    Copyright 2003 The Sierra Times
  2. pickenup

    pickenup Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2002
    Messages:
    6,858
    Location:
    Colorado Rocky Mountains
    I think this would be the most important decision that the Supreme Court has ever made, concerning the future of this country.
  3. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    13,855
    Location:
    At SouthernMoss' side forever!
    Pick, I think that is the understatement of the year.

    Contrary to what most think, I would extend your comment to include a blatant flat-out statement that this , the 2nd Amendment, is actually more important than the 1st and its clarification would be more important than the 1st.

    I can hear the screaming and hollering now but I wouldn't back down for anyone....... Agreed, A&S????
  4. 1952Sniper

    1952Sniper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    5,133
    Location:
    Texas
    That's some pretty tough talk, but I think it's right on.

    I cannot in good conscience vote for Bush again. He has done some pretty severe trampling of the Constitution, between Homeland Security, USA Patriot Act, supporting an unconstitutional gun ban, etc.

    Just because he's the lesser of two evils (some Democrat candidate being the "other" evil) does not make it right to vote for him. To continue to let Bush remain in office and violate our fundamental rights would be akin to the way the NRA trades off our rights to keep and bear arms.

    America needs to stop making compromises. We need to stand up and vote our conscience. I do support many of President Bush's initiatives, but some of the things he is doing crosses the line, in my book. I'd rather vote for someone who has my interests at heart, even if he has no chance of winning.

    Sorry if that was off-topic.

    On the subject at hand, I am having serious doubts about the SCOTUS taking this case. This is just too much of a hot potato. If they took the case, no matter which way they ruled, there would be hell to pay from one segment of society. They will leave it alone and allow our rights to be stripped away one by one.
  5. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    I do feel that the 2nd is paramount to all the others, because it is the one which is intended to allow us to regain the others. That is why it is always the first to be legislated out of existence. When it goes, we will know the battle will eventually have to be taken underground and will become physical, rather than just political.

    One scenario (of many) is that the existing political structure will gradually strip us of so many rights that the populace will become discontented and start to get noisy. Then the army and the guard will be put in place of the police to maintain the peace. That will bring about the physical revolt and civil war which will destroy the government and restore our rights. Simple, eh? Sure it is. Uh-Huh.
    :rolleyes:
  6. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    13,855
    Location:
    At SouthernMoss' side forever!
    Would that it were so simple..........
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Is Our Constitution Still Valid ...? Mar 13, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum ct. still fighting May 22, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum For you living in NY, Mass, CT, why are you still there? Jan 17, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum More Guns ( STILL ) Equal Less Crime .... Oct 2, 2011
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Mexican ambassador still spouting the 90% figure Apr 12, 2009

Share This Page