What if they started confiscating arms based on Silveira v. Lockyer?

[Cosmoline]

Denial of Certiorari is an administrative decision, not a judicial one. We usually never get to know why cert is denied in a case, except in rare cases where some justice will post a public comment on the choice. Generally speaking, in cases such as this where there is a developing split, the Court opts to let things "brew" longer in the circuits before stepping in. Or it may be that the faction of justices who might favor an individual rights approach are waiting for different facts or a different law under challenge. Who knows?

The bottom line is the denial means NOTHING judicially. It has no impact at all.

And NO, the circuit's ruling is ABSOLUTELY NOT the "law of the land." As I tried to explain, the Court of Appeal's ruling is binding ONLY on federal district courts within the 9th Cir. Nowhere else. No state court is bound by anything they say. Only the US Supreme Court's rulings are said to be "the law of the land," and then only in certain cases.

So the 9th cir's ruling, which is just a repeat of earlier rulings, has no impact on any state court whatsoever. Its only impact is to remove that Constitutional challenge to that particular California law.

 

[brookstexas]

Oh Really???

California is in this mess because studies/polls show they don't get informed, get involved or vote. I doubt 90% will do more than hand them over and gripe about it. I left there as soon as I could....
BT

 

[jimpeel]

And NO, the circuit's ruling is ABSOLUTELY NOT the "law of the land." As I tried to explain, the Court of Appeal's ruling is binding ONLY on federal district courts within the 9th Cir.

It is also binding on the states within that jurisdiction. Otherwise, why are state operated schools held to the Pledge of Allegiance ruling? By your standard, only the federal courts within the district are not allowed to say "under God" in the Pledge.

 

[Cosmoline]

It gets complex. The 9th circuit's pledge ruling would only have impact on whatever school district was before it and on the district courts below it. It is most certainly not the law of the land in the sense of certain Supreme Court rulings.

However, since the state schools can be sued in federal court on the federal constituional question, and since the 9th's ruling would be binding on the district courts, in effect the ruling would impact the entire circuit.

In this case, nothing new was decided at all. The 9th upheld its earlier rulings and refused to overturn the California law on the claimed grounds. That's it. If somebody takes a constitutional challenge to an Oregon gun law to federal court, they'll get the same answer at the district court level. If they take it to the state courts, they may get a different answer.