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 Ė you know, like the present Ė 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 havenít 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 donít 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, from the authority to ban virtually all personal, let alone concealed, handguns. In our controlling governmentís opinion, the more state-sponsored sanctions against guns in one form or another, the better for them, because then itís not the federal government banning those weapons Ė itís the states. Thatís 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 ďcollectiveĒ 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 Ė 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 didnít happen when God and prayer were kicked out of school. It didnít 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 donít 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 Ė 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 citizenís 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 donít 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 Californiaís 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

E-Mail This Article