Potentially Historic Second Amendment Lawsuit Petitioned to Supreme Court (Silveira)

KeepAndBearArms.com ^ | July 3, 2003 | KeepAndBearArms.com

[mvpel]

Silveira v. Lockyer lawsuit could settle decades of controversy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 3, 2003

CONTACTS: Gary Gorski, Attorney for Plaintiffs Cell: (916) 276-8997 Office: (916) 965-6800 Fax: (916) 965-6801 Angel Shamaya, director, KeepAndBearArms.com Office: (928) 522-8833

A Second Amendment lawsuit was petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court today -- just in time for Independence Day. The case Silveira v. Lockyer, which originated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, was previously appealed to the U. S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, resulting in a deeply divided ruling. The lawsuit seeks to address at least two specific aspects of the Second Amendment, namely: does the Second Amendment apply to the states in the same way that the First, Fourth, and Fifth amendments apply, and does it guarantee an individual right, in the same manner as those other amendments to the Bill of Rights.

The case began when several plaintiffs in California decided to challenge a state gun control law, enacted by the Democrat-controlled legislature of that state, that affected their freedom to own and use certain firearms.

Lead attorney for the lawsuit, Gary W. Gorski, says the law clerks and Justices will note the care, depth, and thoroughness that went into preparing the Petition for Writ of Certiorari. "Hundreds of hours went into this Petition,” says Mr. Gorski. “Centuries of legal scholarship tell us that our Bill of Rights is primarily a document protecting individual rights.” He added, "It's time to put an end to the flawed jurisprudence stemming from blatant disregard for our right to own and use firearms. We believe the Court must finally do the right thing by hearing this vital case."

Gorski says the National Rifle Association is not involved in the lawsuit. He praises another national grassroots organization for great help in preparing the case. "KeepAndBearArms.com's director Angel Shamaya and two key Advisors, David Codrea and Brian Puckett, deserve appreciation for their extensive help in getting us to this point." Gorski also benefited from "amazing constitutional scholarship and knowledge of appellate law" from a "gifted attorney who prefers to remain anonymous."

Gorski filed the Silveira v. Lockyer certiorari petition just before July 4th, as he believes Independence and the Second Amendment are cousins. "Our nation's Founders knew exactly what they were doing when they put the 'gun clause' right next to the 'free speech and religion' clause," says the California-based attorney. "After fighting a bloody war for freedom, of course they meant 'the people' when they penned the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, many politicians today no longer understand the importance of freedom. And millions of innocent Americans face potential prison sentences for merely exercising their constitutional right, and their natural right of self-defense. We think the Justices will review our Petition and realize that this hearing is long overdue."

The last time the Supreme Court ruled on a Second Amendment case was in 1939, in United States. v. Miller.

Gorski believes the high court will announce in early October whether or not it will hear this case. "Until then," he says, "we've have a great deal of work to do to prepare our brief and oral arguments. This is one of the most important things I've ever been involved in -- I'm committed to doing it right, and doing it well."

[mvpel]

The baloon is up - the petition for writ of certorai has been filed in the Silveira v. Lockyer California assault-weapons ban challenge.

Let's just hope that the SCOTUS doesn't come up with a "compelling state interest" to uphold the ban, as they have done in various other state Supreme Courts.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Let them do as they will.

The time aproaches.

[pabianice]

Bad timing. This SCOTUS just ruled that Affirmative Discrimination against whites, Asians, and Jews is just fine and that gay marriage is a 'private choice.' You want them to rule on the 2nd Amendment?

[Dog Gone]

A case like this needs to be decided by the Supreme Court, but I would have preferred a more conservative court to have heard it. A bad decision would be worse than waiting would have been.

[RISU]

Guns are available.

Americans own them.

Dioes it matter what they "rule"?

[Husker24]

The Supreme Court will just say that individuals have the right, but that states can decide which firearms are legal. As usual they have no balls, and California will still be able to ban everything.

[phasma proeliator]

Ping

[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

"Let's just hope that the SCOTUS doesn't come up with a "compelling state interest" to uphold the ban, as they have done in various other state Supreme Courts."

I really don't care what those Depends Pants-wearing old farts think, or say anymore. I believe that the people are fed up and if a future President "overrides" their rulings nobody will bat an eye as long as the override meets with their approval. If the Supreme Court rules that the 2nd Amendment means nothing more than "pumkins shall be orange" and the President won't override it, the people will elect a new President who pledges to do so.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

I fully expect the Supreme Court to screw us on this.

[elephant]

And no kiss, of course! : 0

[MineralMan]

"Let them do as they will.

The time aproaches."

The time for what? You planning to emigrate?

[MineralMan]

The court won't hear this one...that's my prediction. Anyone can file the writ. The court will simply deny it.

[OldFriend]

Heaven help us. This Court is too senile. Stevens, O'Connor, Renquist.......to say nothing of Bader Ginsburg......AAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH

Give us some more Scalia and Thomas justices.

[Crusader21stCentury]

You planning to emigrate?

I think he means what we are not allowed to say here. And he is not alone.
I would just like to mention how the North Vietnamese beat us... politically, by executing the local village leaders. It is a worthwhile approach.

[SevenDaysInMay]

OUR Constitution, THE "controlling legal authority", means what it says, 14th's "equal protection" extends our 2nd's "RTKABA" civil right to all jurisdictions.

The same blackrobes who dictated that the 14th shall not apply to whities are not obeying the very "Law of the Land" from which they derive all of their lawful authority and power.

SCOTUS and hundreds of inferior judges are in clear breech of their oath and term of office, "good behavior" - absoluting including obeying THE "Law of the Land" - RULING according within OUR "Law of the Land's" declarations.

?

Our "living" Constitution is a vague, poorly worded, list of doctrines or sugestions so that We the People could be told what OUR "Law of the Land" really means and how it shall be enforced, under penalty of law by audacious, all powerful judges and justices who tell We the People that they have terms of office for LIFE?

Horse feathers!

Is it not ironic that blackrobes' uniform is the color of tar and Chief Rehnquist's arm bands approximately the color of rope?

[gitmo]

SCOTUS believes what's in the Constition isn't. And vice-versa.

[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

Amen. I wouldn't be shocked to turn on the TV News to see.......

[MineralMan]

"I think he means what we are not allowed to say here. And he is not alone.
"

Well, I was hoping to hear it from the person I asked, you see. Unless you're his/her alter ego, I don't suppose you can answer for him/her.

As for being alone, I'm sure he's not. It's irrelevant, though, since neither are those who oppose the sort of actions you seem to be suggesting. Indeed, there are many, many more of them than you.

[mvpel]

There's a certain subset of gun rights proponents who have the notion that we need to get a ruling one way or the other from the SCOTUS, no matter the merits of the case or the strategy involved in bringing it, so that if they rule the wrong way they can re-enact the bloodsheed that occurs "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

[MineralMan]

"There's a certain subset of gun rights proponents who have the notion that we need to get a ruling one way or the other from the SCOTUS, no matter the merits of the case or the strategy involved in bringing it, so that if they rule the wrong way they can re-enact the bloodsheed"
\
Oh, OK. Well, I'll keep an eye on the paintball courses, then. Sounds series.