Replies

Actually neither is correct. What happened was: The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a ruling that upheld California's ban on assault weapons ~~and~~that declared there was no constitutional right for individuals to own a gun.

When the court declines to hear a case, it has no affect on the law, it creates no legal precedence, and does not express the Court's opinion on the merits of the case. The Court itself has declared that. However it does allow the ruling of the Court below (in this case the 9th Circuit) to stand, and that ruling is the law in those states within it's jurisdiction. So in California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Montana and Idaho, there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. AFAIK, only the fifth circuit, covering Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, has declared the right protected by the Second Amendment to be one belonging the individuals who make up the group known as "the people". Some say that ruling was mere dicta which does not carry much precedentual weight, and since it was only a 3 judge panel which ruled is not binding on the cicuit as a whole. The 9th circuit Silveira case was also by a 3 judge panel, but previously the entire circuit (en banc) ruled against an individual right.

When the court declines to hear a case, it has no affect on the law, it creates no legal precedence, and does not express the Court's opinion on the merits of the case.

Just below you say that the "ruling is the law in those states within it's jurisdiction". --- Which is it? You can't have it both ways, can you?

The Court itself has declared that.
However it does allow the ruling of the Court below (in this case the 9th Circuit) to stand, and that ruling is the law in those states within it's jurisdiction.
So in California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Montana and Idaho, there is no individual right to keep and bear arms.

This 'idea' boggles the rational mind. It directly contradicts the 14th & the 2nd.

of AFAIK, only the fifth circuit, covering Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, has declared the right protected by the Second Amendment to be one belonging the individuals who make up the group known as "the people". Some say that ruling was mere dicta which does not carry much precedentual weight, and since it was only a 3 judge panel which ruled is not binding on the cicuit as a whole. The 9th circuit Silveira case was also by a 3 judge panel, but previously the entire circuit (en banc) ruled against an individual right.

The legal mind is a true mystery to me. How can these supposedly rational men believe such obviously specious 'rulings'?

Does anyone know? Is it the law schools that foster such illogical idiocy?