Court watching...

David, your "probably" was prophetic. According to SCOTUSblog, DC v Heller was not considered at Friday's meeting. Looks like the next opportunity for them to consider this case is 21 November.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-takes-no-action-on-gun-case/

PS: The anticipation is diffucult to bear (i.e., to carry or hold up).

Unfortunately not by the looks of this..

http://www.scotusblog.com

My hunch? I think the U.S. Supeme Court will deny Parker and Heller to control the damage already done by the DC Circuit. Denying Parker and Heller will limit the damage to gun control to the District of Columbia. In the Tenth Amendment War that I continually characterize as the global gun control agenda the U.S. Supreme Court cannot risk the consequences of letting the People win back their rights in the Tenth Amendment War for power (i.e. powers reserved to the People long stolen by the federal courts).

The U.S. Supreme Court denied Bach v. Pataki, No. 05-786. Form the 2nd Circuit Opinion, No. 03-9123, May 6, 2005: [Bach] wants to carry his Ruger P-85 9mm pistol while visiting his parents in New York. He has a permit from the Commonwealth of Virginia to carry a concealed weapon. Bach is a model citizen – he holds a Department of Defense top secret security clearance, is a commissioned officer in the United States Naval Reserve, a veteran Navy SEAL, a lawyer employed by the Navy’s Office of the General Counsel, a father of three, and, perhaps most laudably, a son who regularly visits his parents in upstate New York." NYC denied his application for non-resident concealed carry. Bach's case is nearly identical to my case where I am a U.S. Merchant Seaman. My case was also denied by the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 03-145 right along with the Silveira case, No. 03-51. These cases are the basis for my reasoning for the U.S. Supreme Court's historical (hysterical?) reluctance to take on a Second Amendment case.

Now, if the Supreme Court does deny Parker and Heller the question then becomes, Is there another case ready to step up to the plate?

The answer is YES! But this case is the NRA's ugly unwanted stepchild of Second Amendment rights: The old antequated right to "openly" keep and bear arms of yesteryear. But this case as a twist. It presents the Second Amendment as a human right under U.N. declarations, conventions, and covenants on human righs. This case was recently delivered to the U.S. Supreme Court. Docket Number still pending subject to probably administrative rejection for technicalities under Rule 33.2. This case is Hamrick v. United Nations and United States? Will my case suddenly become the "new kid on the block?"

I have also filed a human rights complaint against the United States with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Petition No. P-1142-06.

If Parker and Heller are denied then the only way the People can win there Second Amendment rights is at the international level with the Inter-American Conventon on Human Rights. Such is the path I have taken long before anyone ever thought of it, let alone did anything about it. (NRA flapping there noise maker at U.N. conferences as an NGO isn't going to do anything for us).

You can believe it or not but Jessica Gonzales v. United States, at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights as Petition No. 1490-05, is a human rights complaint over the legal doctrine of "no constitutional right to police enforcement or protection" has been accepted as a human rights case for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Costa Rica (trial likely to be held in the United States), opened the door for our Second Amendment as an international human rights case.

We can now take the fight for the Second Amendment (and the Tenth Amendmnt under the Common Defence clause of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution) to the United Nations through the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

The "Next Step" is the step I have already taken, taking a Second Amendment as a human rights case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. For the last 5 years that I have been litigating my case without an attorney the NRA and Second Amendment Foundation have been offended by my "Lone Ranger" (pro se) case because in counter's their pet agenda for National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry as oppoed to my "National Open Carry Handgun" approach.

I am most certainly the lone underdog in this international war over actual freedom.

Strike reference to NYC in the above post and enter "Pataki."

(vague on the particulars).

http://www.warrifles.com

wow!

I think if the Supreme Court denies certiorari
then it essentially nullifies the D.C. Circuit's
ruling or it does further if they rule 5 to 4 against Heller.

The entire appellate case law for the country
is thus changed is it not?

Marc

Yes! That is why I say the U.S. Supreme Court will deny Parker and Heller. The damage is already done to the gun control agenda. Why risk sinking the battleship of gun control by taking on Parker and Heller and having to be forced into a corner admitting the Second Amendment right is an individual right to keep and bear arms in the home. To do so would open the door to "next step" cases such as mine. The right to carry in your front yard, to travel intrastate, to travel interstate. Then comes the Second Amendment as a human right as I am attempting now.

If the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door to Parker and Heller they will be opening a can of worms the likes of which will pro-create case law equal to that of the First Amendment.

Accepting Parker and Heller is analogious to partying at a college frat house!

Denying Parker and Heller is analogious to Pink Floyd's "Another Brink in the Wall." "Hey, Leave those kids alone!" (kids equating to guns in the philosophical sense).

To address your other point:

Suppose the Supreme Court does take on Parker and Heller and overturns the DC Circuit, and affirm the District Court's ruling. No guns in the home would become the law of the land. The U.S. Supreme Court would have the be collectively insane whether the vote is 9-0 or 5-4 to overturn the DC Circuit. There would be a national reaction far more severe than Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). I may be reaching here, but such a reaction may generate an over the top support for the seccession movement now ongoing in half the states.

Yeah but they didn't reject it out of
hand as far as we can tell.

That is a good sign for our side.

Parker and Heller reminds me of this old favorite Rock and Roll song:

For What It's Worth

ARTIST: Buffalo Springfield


There's something happening here

What it is ain't exactly clear

There's a man with a gun over there

Telling me I got to beware

I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound

Everybody look what's going down


There's battle lines being drawn

Nobody's right if everybody's wrong

Young people speaking their minds

Getting so much resistance from behind

I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound

Everybody look what's going down


What a field-day for the heat

A thousand people in the street

Singing songs and carrying signs

Mostly say, hooray for our side

It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound

Everybody look what's going down


Paranoia strikes deep

Into your life it will creep

It starts when you're always afraid

You step out of line, the man come and take you away


We better stop, hey, what's that sound

Everybody look what's going down

Stop, hey, what's that sound

Everybody look what's going down

Stop, now, what's that sound

Everybody look what's going down

Stop, children, what's that sound

Everybody look what's going down

The U.S. Supreme Court will also have to deal with Judge Reggie B. Waton's infamous ruling that the Second Amendment does not apply to the citizens of the District of Columbia in Seegar, to which the Supreme Court denied that case, (No. 03-51) right alonge with my flip-side case for Second Amendment and the right to travel interstate (No. 03-145).

That would have had to call in the Fourteenth Amendment on constitutional grounds. I believe the U.S. Supreme Court is terified of this because there are precedents impugning the constitutionality of the Fourteenth Amendment. Just read up on Judge L. H. Perez of Louisiana's "The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional" and David Lawrence's "Thereis No Fourteenth Amendment." U.S. News & World Report, September 27, 1957; and Dyett v. Turner, 439 P2d 266 at 269, 20 U2d 403 (1968).

Those and other sources document the fact that the United States imposed a military dictatorship over the Southern States at the end of the Civil War and caused the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment by unlawful and unconstutitonal means.

For these reasons I, as a Southern man and a proven Southern lineage I interpret the second sentence in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to read as "The United States shall make or enforce any law which abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws; but the States shall not." The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed in 1866 and ratified under duress in 1868.

I found the following 1865 NY Times opinion piece online at the NY Times Archive on the subject of States rights and citizenship. Note the author's distinct hatred of Southerners (especially Virginia). This regionalism still carries on today as, if a recall, New York was, or coninues to attack Virginia and Florida's lax gun control laws.

The Supreme Court on State Sovereignty, Taxation and Citizenship

Supreme Court on State Taxation -- Supreme Court against any State Interference with National Banks -- Case of the State of Ohio -- Of the Steamboat Monodopy -- National Citizenship Valid Without Aid of the States.

The Beeches, Thursday, Feb. 7, 1865.

New York Times, Wednesday, February 17, 1865. p. 2. (1246 words)

Your correspondent "M.H.". (Times of the 4th inst.,) has said something suggestive of much which ought to be said. Nothing astonishes me so much as the profound ignorance which seems to exist of Constitutional law. If this was found only among uneducated people, it would not besurprising. But it exists among all our Legislative bodies, and even the members of the bar, to whom not only the Constitution, but all the judicial opinions on it should be as familiar as their alphabet. Even this great and awful war is due, in no small degree, to an utter ignorance of the nature of our Government, the decisions of the Supreme Court upon the Constitution, and the practical changes which those decisions and the acquiescence of the people have made in its administration. This war is not only caused in part by ignorance of the Constitution, but is absolutely necessary to make it understood and put a right construction upon it. We have not merely to conquer rebellion or to abolish slaver, but to conquer the political ideas which undermined the Government by false constructions of the Constitution.

. . . [omitting herein the subject of States attempting to tax the stock of the United States Bank] . . .

. . . In the TIMES, a few days since, you speak (impliedly at least) as if it were an inconsistency to exclude the representation of Tennessee, when we take a Vice President from there. I don't know in what respect it is inconsistent, unless in regard to the question of citizenship. We have not yet admitted any State to be out of the Union; but that does not compel the House of Representatives, (which is sole judge of the qualifications of its own members,) to receive representatives from Tennessee. In regard to citizenship. ANDREW JOHNSON is a citizen of the United States, irrespective of the State of Tennessee. If the State of Tennessee chooses to set up a rebellion, tht does not impair the rights of any of its people as citizens of the United States. A man may be a citizen of the United States, who is not a citizen of any State, (except consequentially from that fact,) and, as such, entitled to all the rights of a citizen andthe protection of the Government, in the same manner as if he were a citizen of any one State. I need not state illustrations, for any lawyer will see in what manner they occur.

I can readily give full credit to those (even the rebels) who have sincerely maintained the dotrine of State Sovereignty. I think I know and understand their whole idea. They really think that a National Government, founded on popular representation, is dangerous, because despotic over minorities and individuals. They think to check this by State vetoes, (on Calhoun's principle;) by considering the Constitution a compact, in which the States retain their sovereignty. Very well, I will take them at their word. They distrust Democracy. I (who am no Democrat ex nomino) am willing to trust it. I prefer despotism (if it must come) in the form of a represented national will, to the petty despotism of a weak Confederacy, governed by ignorant, factious, local Legislatures. Give me the National Government at Washington, moving on in the glory of a great people, rather than that miserable assembly ofweak, complaining, contemptible demagogues at Richmond.

I new (at least thought so) that the Constitution of the United States formed the strongest government ever formed on earth; --- and that this strength which rested on the solid basis of the people, would endure all the shocks of time, of passion, and of popular commotion. The war has justified my confidence, and not the least its happy facts will be (when peace spreads its charms over the land,) that the Government has been tested, and become more than ever the bright example of excellence to the nations of the earth.

A Veteran Observer.

The strongest government to ever lose out to the human and industrial strengths of China lol.

Paradigms are shifting and the concept
of American multi-generational hegemony
is not so sacrosanct.

Remember Russia lasted for 600 years before
the Bolsheviks took over.

Marc

Here's another approach:

SOURCE: THE LAW OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION: ITS ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT

By Charles K. Burdick, Professor of Law in Cornell University; Francis Marion Burdick, Late Dwight Professor of Law in Columbia University, pub. Fred B. Rothman & co., Littleton, Colorado. 1987. p. 326.

§ 113. One May Be a United States Citizen and Not a Citizen of a State. While every citizen of the United States resident in any State is now without doubt a citizen of that State it is perfectly possible for a person to be a citizen of the United States and not a citizen of any State, as when he resides in one of the territories, or is born abroad of a father who is a citizen, and continues to reside abroad, or where a citizen of the United States and of a State takes up his residence abroad, when, it would seem, he loses his state citizenship.FN3

FN3. Hammerstein v. Lyne (1912) 200 Fed. 165. In the Dred Scott case (1856) 19 Howard 393, although Chief Justice Taney denied that a State could, from classes not recognized as citizens who would thereby become United States citizens and so acquire rights guaranteed to citizens by the Consitution, he asserted that States might create state citizens who would not be United States citizens (p. 405). The Fourteenth Amendment does not deny this power, so that States may, and in some cases do, confer upon aliens rights which are normal incidents of state citizenship, such as the right to vote, and the right to own and inherit personal and real property. Since the federal government has exclusive power of naturalization, and since a naturalized citizen or a citizen born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen of the State in which he resides, there would be few opportunities for a State to attempt to make a person one of its citizens in the constitutional sense. If, however, a State should declare by legislation that a person born abroad, whose father was a United States citizen and had resided in that State, should be a citizen of that State, and such person should assert his right to the privileges and immunities of citizens in another State, the question of the power of a State to create a person one of its citizens in the constitutional sense would be raised. There would seem to be noting in the Constitution which would prevent its doing so.

- - -

DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. (How.) 393, 416-417 (1856)

The legislation of the States therefore shows, in a manner not to be mistaken, the inferior and subject condition of that race at the time the Constitution was adopted, and long afterwards, throughout the thirteen States by which that instrument was framed; and it is hardly consistent with the respect due to these States, to suppose that they regarded at that time, as fellow-citizens and members of the sovereignty, a class of beings whom they had thus stigmatized; whom, as we are bound, out of respect to the State sovereignties, to assume they had deemed it just and necessary thus to stigmatize, and upon whom they had impressed such deep and enduring marks of inferiority and degradation; or, that when they met in convention to form the Constitution, they looked upon them as a portion of their constituents, or designed to include them in the provisions so carefully inserted for the security and protection of the liberties and rights of their citizens. It cannot be supposed that they intended to secure to them rights, and privileges, and rank, in the new political body throughout the Union, which every one of them denied within the limits of its own dominion. More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police [60 U.S. 393, 417] regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.

- - -

If State citizenship includes the right "to keep and carry arms" in intrastate travel (and interstate travel for U.S. citizenship) then can it be said that any denial of a right to carry (whether open or concealed) is a denial of citizenship? So, if the citizen's are denied their right to "keep and carry" arms wherever they go (including in their own home) wouldn't that, by definition, make the citizen's of the District of Columbia slaves? And wouldn't that mean that the Thirteenth Amendment also does not apply to the District of Columbia? And if that is true, then none of the Amendments apply to the District of Columbia. Would that then render the guarantee of a Republican form of Government null and void to us all?

AAAAaarrrggghhh! The cascading questions are insurmountable!

So did Breyer, Souter, Stevens, and Ginsburg
screw us for another 70 years?

Stevens is VERY anti-2nd Amendment
he has thus stated so.

And if Souter was the cause I like
Bush the Elder even less now.

He couldn't win re-election and he left
us with someone like Souter who is an
albatross around our collective necks.

Marc