Time For Traitors To Step Aside [Silveira v. Lockyer, Cal AW Ban case]

Keep and Bear Arms ^ | 21 October 2003 | Michael Z. Williamson

[45Auto]

There are three possibilities here:

1: SCOTUS refuses to hear the case. It goes away, someone tries again. No actions on your part can improve this scenario.

2: SCOTUS rules against us. That seems to be the big fear here. “But what if we loooooooooose?” I hear people whine. Fact is, most District and lower courts are of the opinion that we don’t have a 2nd Amendment. Several of those judicial opinions are why this case exists, right? If you step into the arena, there’s a risk of losing. But if you refuse to fight, you have lost preemptively. And even among those courts that recognize it, the 2nd Amendment is not considered a civil right for purposes of civil law—one cannot sue anyone for “violating my Second Amendment rights.”

This case hopes to address that. We have good briefs, good clients, good attorneys and a plan. Give us more competent amicus briefs if you want to help.

3: SCOTUS rules in our favor. Do please assure me this is what you’d like to see! It would define keeping and bearing arms as a right, permanently. From there, we have a basis to HAMMER our opponents politically and socially as “bigoted extremists attempting to undermine our civil rights.” And make no mistake, we will.

Now, complaints, aspersions, second-guesses, death threats against our attorneys and ad hominem attacks and pejoratives will not accomplish possibility #3. THAT is what we’re here about, folks.

I’ve got friends supporting this case who are Trotskyites, neo-Conservatives, Libertarians, gays, Christians, Muslims, etc. If we define the 2nd Amendment as only applying to “right-thinking people of the right political and racial makeup,” we’ll not only be bigots, we’ll lose by our own divisiveness. Recall your Franklin. “We must all hang together, or we most assuredly will all hang separately.”

Frankly, I’m puzzled. It seems as if a certain cross-section of our community wants to say, “We Told You So! Neener, Neener, Neener! Your suit failed!”

Childish.

Not only childish, but it would mean they’d be gloating along with Sarah Brady, Chucky Schumer, Dianne Feinstein and other enemies of freedom.

Just whose side are these people on? They aren’t on ours, and they aren’t staying quiet and working in parallel on their own cases. Their only goal seems to be sabotage of the case we do have. That is traitorous. That makes the Brady Bunch cackle with glee.

The case is at SCOTUS. Support it, or step aside. But do everyone a favor, and keep your misgivings to yourself.

[45Auto]

"...And even among those courts that recognize it, the 2nd Amendment is not considered a civil right for purposes of civil law—one cannot sue anyone for “violating my Second Amendment rights.”

Which is why we cannot sue the Brady Boob or anyone else for being the butt-wipes that they are regarding the RKBA.

[Grut]

Which is why we cannot sue the Brady Boob...

Well, to be fair, the 2nd Amendment only applies to government. The Bradys can advocate gun control, or even forbid someone to carry chez Brady without running afoul of it. In order for there to be a civil right to bear arms, it would have to be enacted into law as a separate issue.

[coloradan]

In order for there to be a civil right to bear arms, it would have to be enacted into law as a separate issue.

On the contrary, this isn't a totalitarian society in which everything is prohibited unless it has explicitly been allowed; it's a free society in which everything is allowed unless it has been specifically prohibited. If the government can't restrict the right to keep and bear arms (because of the Second Amendment), then you are free to carry a gun around law or no law.

[Ches]

bang

[LibTeeth]

This, along with the sunsetting of the AW ban are good canaries in the coal mine of liberty. The next year or so will be telling as to whether conservative successes in American politics can have any tangible benefit to RKBA.

[El Gato]

On the contrary, this isn't a totalitarian society in which everything is prohibited unless it has explicitly been allowed; it's a free society in which everything is allowed unless it has been specifically prohibited. If the government can't restrict the right to keep and bear arms (because of the Second Amendment), then you are free to carry a gun around law or no law.

I think you missed his point. You are correct in that *goverment* cannot infringe on your RKBA and you need no law to authorize you to exercise that right. However private citizens cannot be charged with crime for trying to deny you that right. This could only be done if Congress, or a state legislature, a passed a law making deprivation or attempted deprivation of the RKBA a crime. However anyone who tried to do so directly, would probably be commiting some other crime, but not necessarily.

For example suppose you live in an apartment, and tommorrow the manager decides that they are no longer going to allow any guns in the apartment. Assuming it's privately owned, even if subsidized in various ways, you are SOL. However if they decided they didn't want to rent to Gringos (or Latinos, take your pick) and refused to renew your lease on that basis, you would then have a cause for action under the Civil Rights laws.

[coloradan]

Thank you for the explanation. I agree with the points in your post, but hadn't understood the other post as making those same points. Yes, eventually, discrimination based on choice of gun ownership should have the same legal status as discrimiation based on choice of religion or sexual practices. (Which is to say, all should be equally protected or none should be protected.)

[Grut]

...it's a free society in which everything is allowed unless it has been specifically prohibited.

True enough, at least in principle, but until somebody's forbidding you to carry on their property is specifically prohibited, RKBA isn't a civil right.

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

I highly doubt the Supreme Court would rule that citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, but we are slowly losing the 2nd Amendment with each passing year as more gun control laws are continually passed. Something has to be done and this case could possibly (though very unlikely) do it.

[45Auto]

My opinion is that the Supreme Court won't hear this case. There are many reasons why they do not want to rule on the 2nd, among which is that since they know what the right decision should be and since they are too cowardly to do the right thing, they don't want to do anything at all. If they do take the case, I fear the decision will not be good for the RKBA, in fact such a decision may be the beginning of the end of the RKBA as we have known it. People say that it will be good to have a definitive ruling once and for all; the good news is that SC decisions really don't solve issues "once and for all" - they never make decisions that are absolute - however, they do make rulings which stand for decades. As far as I am concerned, no matter what the ruling (if they hear the case), I will always be armed.