"Too many think the proper norm is being required to get Government’s permission."
Those words just about summed it all up.
As to rejection for review, the supremes only take the cases that can be manipulated to reach the desired end. This case simply did not present them with that opportunity. Which is to say, the Supremes are not prepared to clearly elucidate the obvious: that each of us really does have the right keep and bear arms, personally, in our homes, on our person, without regulation.
Folks, that really is scary.
Well, time to go check out some online auctions, maybe another mauser.
I've been ruminating over our courts for some time now, and that article came on the heels of 2-3 other things and caused me to email this rant to my list of "serious" friends. Thanks for that link.
I'm sending this to a select few individuals I think will find this thought provoking--although alarming. If you're on this list, you're a current or former member of the armed forces, and/or an avid shooter, and/or simply a "Right Thinking American" patriot. You may not have heard from in a long time, but if you're getting this, it means I consider you a "serious" person I have great respect for.
It pains me to send this, but some recent comments by Cardinal Francis George (Catholic archbishop of the Chicago Diocese) about the state of our judiciary recently got me to thinking about the sad state of liberty in this country. I believe (thankfully) that my father will not live to see this day, but I am increasingly becoming convinced that I may live to see the day that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants." (Thomas Jefferson, November 13, 1787). I do mean real blood. I do mean in this country.
Cardinal George, in comments made recently in a speech in Peoria said, "America is becoming a dictatorship of judges." He was speaking of things which concern Catholics--and others--such as abortion laws and the recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court that overturned a legislated ban on same-sex marriages. The following is taken from the December 7, 2003 issue of The Chicago Catholic.
[begin quote from publication] Cardinal George said the courts are quickly becoming "enemies of human liberty" because "any dimension of human experience" is now subject to scrutiny by the judicial system.
"There are no limits to what judges can decide. If government is not limited then it is not a democracy and we are not a free people," the cardinal told more than 1,100 people gathered at the Peoria Civic Center Exhibit Hall.
Cardinal George said laws in a democracy are made by "elected officials who are answerable to the people from time to time."
"But we are now in a situation where our laws in fact are more and more made by unelected officials, by judges, by courts," he said. "We are a constitutional democracy whose basic law is revealed to us every spring when at the end of the Supreme Court session we're told what the constitution is for the next year."
Because the law rests on "the opinions of nine unelected judges. . .who are never answerable to the people in any way, America is becoming "a dictatorship of judges," he added. [end of quote from publication]
Maybe you personally are not concerned about these particular issues, but I'm fairly certain the courts have created de facto law out of thin air on some topic you happen to be passionate about. Restrictions on the use of private property by both businesses and individuals has gotten way out of hand. If the do-gooders can't get desired legislation passed they simply file suit and get sympathetic judges to rule in their favor. The tort law system in this country has long be broken--judges have given up even the pretense of observing any theory of liability and simply turn the class-action lawyers loose to loot the nearest "big pocket". The judges thwart the criminal laws on our books, as well, refusing to incarcerate criminals, or turning incarcerated violent criminals loose to wreak mayhem on the public again and again on dubious legal grounds. Our attempts to regain control through our elected officials are simply scoffed at by the judiciary, and the public is rapidly losing what little respect they might still foster towards our court system.
Lest you think this kind of judicial activism is restricted to "crazy" local courts, or to infamous goof-ball benches such as is found at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California, two recent actions by the United States Supreme Court have caused me to suck in my breath in disbelief. The first is their upholding the recently enacted McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform law. You needn't have gone to law school to understand, as Justice Antonin Scalia so eloquently articulated in his dissent, that this is a direct, frontal attack on the First Amendment. Justice Scalia's comments. . .
This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U. S. 234 (2002), tobacco advertising, Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U. S. 525 (2001), dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U. S. 514 (2001), and sexually explicit cable programming, United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U. S. 803 (2000), would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government. For that is what the most offensive provisions of this legislation are all about. [emphasis added]
Yes, the Supreme Court has indeed smiled upon a law that cuts to the very heart of what prompted Patrick Henry's famous speech ending with, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" This was the first disturbing Supreme Court action in recent weeks.
The second was their refusal to hear Silveira v. Lockyer. This case was filed in California in 2000 and was an attempt to overturn California's arbitrary ban on semi-automatic rifles, and it argued for the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The Silveira lawsuit lost in the Eastern District court and was appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where it naturally also lost. That loss included a lengthy, wildly inaccurate rant from an often-overturned judge who reiterated the absurd notion that "the right of the people" is a right of the States. The plaintiffs then sought an en banc (full court) rehearing in the Ninth Circuit. While it failed to get that rehearing, six dissents were included, in support of the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court -- on July 3, 2003. [from http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html] One would think there could be no clearer issue that should command the attention of the Supreme Court, but, amazingly, they refused to hear it, letting the lower court ruling stand.
In the first action, the Supreme Court upheld a patently unconstitutional law attacking the First Amendment. Don't let anyone argue that this issue is "complex" and you don't understand all the ramifications, and you need to be a constitutional scholar to figure this out. BALDERDASH! Justice Scalia understands it and lays it out in plain English. In the second action, The Supreme Court, through its inaction, allowed a patently unconstitutional law and judicial ruling to stand.
I'm hoping this affects you the same way it affected me. Some of you probably don't think much about the gun rights issue, or even care about it that much. However, how do you feel about laws that say you can't cut down a tree, put up a fence, reinforce a creek bank, or fill in a muddy area on your own property without a permit (if you are allowed at all)? How do you feel about laws in some jurisdictions that allow doctors to perform a surgical abortion on your 13-year old daughter without notifying you, when in the same place it's illegal for a school nurse to give your daughter aspirin without your written consent? How do you feel about a court that would allow someone to sue you because they were hit by a car which jumped the curb onto your property and the driver was uninsured? How do you feel about a court that jails you for shooting a burglar armed with a knife in your own home and lets the burglar off with no jail time?
When I was commissioned a Lieutenant in the United States Air Force on April 1st, 1983, I took this oath: ''I, John Patrick Collins, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God!" Our judges and elected officials also take a similar oath. Unfortunately, our elected officials are crafting legislation which violates our First Amendment rights! Our President signed it! Our Supreme Court upheld it! What do we do in the face of this kind of behavior by our government? If you're alarmed by my raising this question. . .reread Justice Scalia's comments above. I he a nut-ball reactionary? No, he's a Supreme Court Justice! It's an uncomfortable question. . .an extremely uncomfortable question. But it's the "elephant in the living room" nobody wants to talk about. What do we do when our elected and appointed government officials no longer honor their oaths? Notice that my oath is first to the Constitution, and second to the President and his officers--implicitly assuming they, also, are defending the constitution.
The do-gooders and busy-bodies in this country have hijacked the courts, and the folks in this country who know better than you do how you should live your life have figured out that they don't need to pass laws to run your life for you, and they have found a way to negate laws they find inconvenient through our court system. What am I advocating? Well, I am advocating that you get active--really active--in politics. Communicate with your legislators often and voice your displeasure with whatever cockamamie laws they're concocting you feel are inappropriate. Watch what your judges are doing, and if some of them are consistently out of line, watch for an opportunity to replace them. . .or try to foment an opportunity to replace them yourself. In short, do everything you can think of to peaceably take back the reins of government. The Internet is a tremendous tool for this purpose. Our government officials need to feel our fingers poking them in the chest, hard! They need to hear that we won't stand for this state of affairs indefinitely. They need to know that at some point we will take back control over our government.
Please read the treatise at the following link. Not now, I've probably worn you out--but make an appointment with yourself to read it. Pour yourself a glass of wine (if you're so inclined), get to the computer, close the door, and read this. It will take about half an hour, it's longer than this, but it's also better written. Here it is:
This is a California lawyer Peter J. Mancus' Reflections Upon the U.S. Supreme Court's Rejection of Silveira. If I haven't provoked enough thought yet, this last piece surely will. Cardinal George looks upon the state of our society admonishes Catholics to "Train your children and your grandchildren to be martyrs." He goes on to define "Martyrs are people who give witness to the faith in all that they do--in political life, in economic life, in education, in so many ways," he said, "We're all called to be martyrs." It's unclear whether Cardinal George believes we may need to be martyrs in the historical sense of that word. . .I'll let you ponder that, as he does.
Mancus, however, definitely urges you to ponder it. In his piece he suggests we should "...Be firmly committed to secure for one’s loved ones, if not for one’s self, their entitlement: Liberty. Be willing to go for broke, to go for the gold ring that swings eternally—Liberty! Be willing to risk one’s children becoming orphans because their parent refused to risk they or him or her becoming a peon. Be willing to risk not living out one’s sunset years so that one’s loved ones and strangers can enjoy their todays and tomorrows knowing Liberty."
Generations past in this great country of ours have had to hold to that commitment, and no doubt future generations will have to, as well. Maybe our generation will have to be that committed. Are you willing? I urge you to think about it because I believe we have let our government slip far past its natural boundaries, and we need to reassert control over it--peaceably if possible--but reassert control we must in any event. Current and former military members have pondered these questions deeply and often. In fact, they've answered them for themselves a priori. If you're not one, and this state of affairs causes you to assess your own level of commitment, find an old veteran to talk to about it and buy him or her a beer in a quiet corner somewhere where you can discuss it.
I'd love to hear your reaction to this, if you'd care to reply. And much as I detest getting emails suggesting this. . .if this has affected you in a positive way. . . pass it around to the serious folks you respect. More and more polls taken illustrate that some 70-8% of Americans are in disagreement with the various and sundry rulings of our courts. At some point. . .I don't know when. . .but at some point we must reassert control over our government, and I mean forcibly if it comes to that. . .or we must give up the fiction that we are still free people. Our liberty is fast becoming a suit of "the emperor's new clothes".
hmm from what ive read so far,it seems psimilar to what pro-marijuana activists have been sayin for a couple years now.there was a supreme court rulin a year or 2 ago sayin that even though Cali. had approved medical marijuana and that it doesnt matter because federal law says ALL methods of marijuana...medical or not...are illegal.that really sucks because there are seriously ill people that marijuana does benifit and actually help them from some of their symptoms.if you dont beleive me talk to a cancer patient thats on chemo and ask them if it helps them.