On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 10:59, Nostradumbass@SAFe-mail.net wrote:
That made Silveira the law of the land, you see. That means that no American citizen, since December 1, 2003, has a fundamental right to possess a firearm.
Only in the 9th circuit. The 5th circuit (in 2001) has previously given an opinion in direct opposition to the 9th circuit's finding. http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm "We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training." and "We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms..." and "In undertaking this analysis, we are mindful that almost all of our sister circuits have rejected any individual rights view of the Second Amendment. However, it respectfully appears to us that all or almost all of these opinions seem to have done so either on the erroneous assumption that Miller resolved that issue or without sufficient articulated examination of the history and text of the Second Amendment." So in the 5th circuit, the individual right to keep & bear arms is still explicitly recognized and upheld. The Supreme Court will eventually have to resolve this discrepancy amongst the lower courts, it's unclear what kind of case it will take to push them to it though, given their historical extreme reluctance to hear any 2nd amendment cases. And it's very dubious what the decision would be. --bgt