krucam
Ultimate Member
I like to remind folks of CA9 Judge Kozinski's prophetic words.
In December 2002 in California, the State's Assault Weapon ban was upheld at the 9th Circuit in Silveira v Lockyer, saying the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee an individual right to bear arms. Sooo pre-Heller...
As is often the case at the Circuit level, an en banc review can be requested. This happened with this case. The request for rehearing en banc was denied in May 2003.
http://notabug.com/kozinski/silveira_v_lockyer
Judge Kozinski dissented from the majority in denying the rehearing en banc. His words in that dissent rang true in 2003, they ring even more true today
In December 2002 in California, the State's Assault Weapon ban was upheld at the 9th Circuit in Silveira v Lockyer, saying the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee an individual right to bear arms. Sooo pre-Heller...
As is often the case at the Circuit level, an en banc review can be requested. This happened with this case. The request for rehearing en banc was denied in May 2003.
http://notabug.com/kozinski/silveira_v_lockyer
Judge Kozinski dissented from the majority in denying the rehearing en banc. His words in that dissent rang true in 2003, they ring even more true today
All too many of the other great tragedies of history—
Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust,
to name but a few—were perpetrated by armed troops
against unarmed populations. Many could well have been
avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their
intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets
apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent
at 5997-99. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw
Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with
only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles
could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.
My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons
of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines
the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw
the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second
Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those
exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have
failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection
and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the
courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees.
However improbable these contingencies may seem today,
facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make
only once.
Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the
right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional
structure. The purpose and importance of that right was
still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it
would not be forgotten. Despite the panel’s mighty struggle
to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves
can read what they say plainly enough:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The sheer ponderousness of the panel’s opinion—the mountain
of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen
short words of constitutional text—refutes its thesis far more
convincingly than anything I might say. The panel’s labored
effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body
weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake
by sitting on it—and is just as likely to succeed.