10:12 AM -:- Posted by Allen    

Stupid

The Second Amendment is, at best, only 40% of the reason the people, as in the vast group of individuals acting in their personal and private capacities, have an absolute and inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

I haven't yet studied all of the documents in the Silveira case, but I will have done so soon. Meanwhile, I can tell you quite confidently that this case was probably not heard by the Supreme Court because it did not raise the correct question, or did not ask the question correctly, and not because we don't have the right to keep and bear arms personally.

That's what usually happens. Almost-bright lawyers miss the point in the question they pose, and the Supreme Court either declines to follow that path, or worse, it answers a badly-put question as asked, which leaves in place the illusion of settled law when in fact the issue was not even addressed.

Of course, sometimes we do also have a stupid Supreme Court, as in, in my opinion, when the Court answers a wrong question correctly and obfuscates an issue. Or when it fails to do the right thing by a proper question, no matter what the reason.

One can only hope that the Court declined to hear the case because my suspicions are correct: that the case did not present them with the question that cries out to be answered, so they rejected the question that was presented, and now sit and wait for the correct question.

Of course, that would border on the stupid anyway, since the Court has several times in the past waived its own guidelines and expanded the scope of a question in order to address a 'larger' issue. Crandall v. Nevada leaps to mind as an excellent example.

Meanwhile, we out here in the real world also sit and wait, knowing that because the Court's refusal to hear an issue is always taken to mean that they are letting stand a lower court's ruling, in all but the Fifth Circuit's jurisdiction, you have no politically enforceable right to the means to defend yourself, your family, friends and neighbors, or your property, or to serve as the last line of national defense.

The Belligerent Claimant in Person says, To Hell with all of that. The BCiP does not yield his rights for any reason. The government is not sovereign over the individual, the individual in this country is a Citizen and not a Subject.

The Belligerent Claimant in person will ignore all unconstitutional pretenses of law, including gun laws. The BPiC will eventually create the necessary circumstances to challenge all such laws properly, ask the correct question correctly, and put this folly to bed permanently.

That failing, sooner or later there will be hell to pay.

Meanwhile, the issue is not settled.