Red Bluff Daily News


Supreme Court denies Birds request

Friday, May 09, 2003 - Fri May 9 09:05:03 2003 -- The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a Rancho Tehama mans request to hear his Second Amendment case. However, the 68-year-old, ex-Marine says heís not done fighting.

The Second Amendment is fractured again, said Don Bird in response to the Supreme Courts action. But Iím not going to give up.

Monday the high court denied a Writ of Certiorari filed by Bird. The writ had asked the court to make California officials Gov. Gray Davis and Attorney General Bill Lockyer admit that private citizens have a right to bear firearms under the U.S. Constitution.

In November 2001, Bird filed the civil lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Sacramento. With a denial of the Writ of Mandamus at the U.S. District Court, Bird was able to take his case of the Ninth Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

In March 2002, Bird was told by U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows that neither the Second nor the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants a private right to bear arms.

After an appeal, the court in turn refused to rule on Birds petition. That led Bird to seek the help of the Supreme Court. In March, Bird was given a docket number by the Supreme Court and had hoped they would hear his case and render a decision.

Shame on these justices, said Bird. The court apparently feels all other issues that come before them are important enough to offer a decision, but not our Second Amendment rights.

Bird has said that he will not be defeated, and already has plans to petition the court to reconsider hearing his case. The retired contractor says he has until June 1 to petition the court. He plans to do so.

I wouldnít feel good if I didnít go the whole distance, said Bird. Iím going to at least try one more time. I may not win or get any further than I did this time, but at least Iím going to try.

Bird also says he intends to start all over again, filing another suit against the courts. The suit will allege a First Amendment violation on the right to address a grievance and violation of a contract with all sovereign citizens to obey their oath of offices.

Although Bird maintains his respect for the American judicial system and still considers himself a patriot he has harsh words for the justices of the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court. Bird even goes as far as to call the judges spineless cowards and Socialists.

The justices that chose the option to ignore this care are spineless cowards, said Bird. The courts decision to deny this case is a disgrace to every sovereign citizen an absolute contempt for the people.

Birds disappointment randomly coincided with a decision rendered on a similar case, by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Tuesday. The 9th Circuit declined to reconsider a December ruling that upheld a state law banning certain assault rifles. The ruling on the matter stated that the Second Amendment does not allow a personal right to bear arms.

Along with Birds petition for rehearing, the Supreme Court will most likely face a challenge of Tuesdays 9th Circuit ruling.

The court has not rendered a major decision on the Second Amendment in 60 years and has never issued a definitive ruling.