View source for Silveira v. Lockyer

{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox COA case
  |Litigants=Silveira v. Lockyer
  |Court=[[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]]
  |CourtSeal=Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
  |ArgueDate=February 15,
  |ArgueYear=2002
  |DecideDate=December 5,
  |DecideYear=2002
  |FullName=
  |Citations=312 [[F.3d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/312/1052/608831/ 1052] (9th Cir. 2002)
  |Prior=
  |Subsequent=Amended January 27, 2003<br>Rehearing ''[[en banc]]'' denied, 328 [[F.3d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/328/567/500155/ 567] (9th Cir. 2003)
  |Holding=
  |Judges=[[Stephen Reinhardt]], [[Frank J. Magill]] (8th Cir.), [[Raymond C. Fisher]]
  |Majority=Reinhardt
  |JoinMajority=Fisher
  |Concurrence=Magill
  |JoinConcurrence=
  |Dissent=
  |JoinDissent=
  |LawsApplied=[[Second Amendment to the United States Constitution|Second Amendment]]
  |Overruled=''[[District of Columbia v. Heller]]'', [https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html 554 US 570] (2008)
}}
'''''Silveira v. Lockyer''','' 312 [[F.3d]] 1052 (9th Cir. 2002),<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Silveira v. Lockyer |vol=312 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=1052 |pinpoint= |court=9th Cir. |date=2002 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/312/1052/608831/ |accessdate=2018-03-28 |quote=}}</ref> is a decision by the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] ruling that the [[Second Amendment to the United States Constitution]] did not guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the [[Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989]] (AWCA), [[California]] legislation that banned the manufacture, sale, transportation, or importation of specified [[semi-automatic firearm]]s. The plaintiffs alleged that various provisions of the AWCA infringed upon their individual constitutionally-guaranteed [[right to keep and bear arms]].

Judge [[Stephen R. Reinhardt]] wrote the opinion of the three-member panel. The court engaged in an extensive analysis of the history of the Second Amendment and its attendant case law. The court concluded that the Second Amendment did not guarantee individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Instead, the court concluded that the Second Amendment provides "collective" rights, which is limited to the arming of state militia. The opinion initially cited [[Michael Bellesiles]], the historian who earlier in 2002 had resigned under pressure from [[Emory University]] and been stripped of his [[Bancroft Prize]] by [[Columbia University]] for using [[Fabrication (science)|fabricated research]] arguing that during the early period of US history, guns were uncommon during peacetime and that a culture of gun ownership did not arise until the mid-nineteenth century; on January 27, 2003, Judge Reinhardt deleted the citation to Bellesiles and substituted research by political scientist Earl Kruschke in its place.<ref>[https://www.rkba.org/judicial/silveira/cert.pdf ''Silveira v. Lockyer'', Petition for Writ of Certiorari] (U.S. Supreme Court, July 3, 2003)</ref>

The Ninth Circuit refused to hear the case [[en banc]] but issued a set of dissenting opinions to the denial to take the case en banc, which included a notable opinion by Judge [[Alex Kozinski]].<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Silveira v. Lockyer |vol=328 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=567 |pinpoint= |court=9th Cir. |date=2003 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/328/567/500155/ |accessdate=2018-03-28 |quote=}}</ref> The U.S. Supreme Court denied [[certiorari|review]],<ref>124 S. Ct. 803 (2003)</ref> despite the decision [[Circuit split|conflicting]] with the holding of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|Fifth Circuit]] in ''[[United States v. Emerson]]''.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=United States v. Emerson |vol=270 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=203 |pinpoint= |court=5th Cir. |date=2001 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/270/203/545404/ |accessdate=2018-03-28 |quote=}}</ref>

In the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] case of ''[[District of Columbia v. Heller]]'',<ref>{{ussc|name=District of Columbia v. Heller|volume=554|page=570|pin=|year=2008}}.</ref> the opinion in ''Silveira v. Lockyer'' was overruled. The Supreme Court held in ''Heller'' that the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals. The Supreme Court also later held in ''[[McDonald v. Chicago]]'',<ref>{{ussc|name=McDonald v. Chicago|volume=561|page=742|pin=|year=2010}}.</ref> in 2010, that the Second Amendment is an [[incorporation of the Bill of Rights|incorporated right]],<ref>{{cite web|title=The Second Amendment, Incorporated|url=http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/29/the-second-amendment-incorpora|publisher=The American Spectator|accessdate=7 July 2013}}</ref> meaning that it is applicable to state governments and to the federal government.

==See also==
*[[Firearm case law in the United States]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

{{US2ndAmendment}}

[[Category:United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit cases]]
[[Category:United States Second Amendment case law]]
[[Category:2002 in United States case law]]