California has filed a brief in oppossition to Silveira being heard by the Supreme Court.
It's 70 pages long so don't expect a two minute read.
I'm reading it as I type this. All the usual arguments you'd expect from a VPC or Brady Center press release is not just contained, but wholeheartedly embraced within. & yes, the obligatory 'for the children' is implied strongly.
I offer for your consideration what is found on Page 9:
"Statement Of The Case
At issue in this case is a State's regulation of the possession & sale of assault weapons, rapid-fire rifles & pistols that have been used on California's school grounds to kill children..."
In short the brief states that the second amendment applies only to the states & it only restrains congress. No individual Right. It brings up other issues, such as the court shouldn't hear the case because it doesn't have to (The Court had said that it should refrain from tackling complex constitutional questions until there is a direct & immediate need to do so) & the plantiffs lack standing since they are only contemplating the purchase of 'assault weapons' & aren't specific about possessing any currently.
So Lockyer gave what we'd expect - a VPC press release dressed up as a legal brief.
Now the question is whether or not the Supreme Court will hear the case. I'm not making any bets, but I wouldn't be shocked if they declined to hear it.