I think not.
Over ten million hunters armed with scoped deer rifles take to the woods every Autumn. Something to think about.
Posted on 07/03/2003 11:26:21 AM PDT by 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."
I'm working on a deadline project and don't have time to deal with all your misconceptions about the "cold dead hands" position right now, but the above can be dealt with quickly, and it's core to your misunderstandings.
The purpose of an armed insurrection in defense of the Second Amendment would *not* be an "overthrow of our government". Nor would that be a necessary route for fixing the problem. Nor, as you presume in another post, would it require "going to the defense" of anyone surrounded by a SWAT team.
You're right, "overthrowing the government" would be impossible, due to both the size of the task and the number of people who would defend the government with the thought of "even if it's bad right now, it's probably better than anything that would likely arise in its place".
But that's not the issue here.
Nor can the past actions of those people high-strung enough to start barricading themselves when, say, they get a parking ticket (and the notable lack of anyone jumping to their aid) be used as an accurate measure of the sort of mutiny which would occur if/when the government crossed a big enough line that millions cared strongly about it instead of just a handful on the fringe.
And note that for most folks, that occurs at a time when the method of working within the system is no longer a viable option. Don't worry, RKBA folks aren't going to cause a rabble-rousing ruckus in significant numbers as long as legislative and judicial methods are workable (even if an uphill battle). But if the door gets slammed shut on that, what recourse would *you* suggest? Will you join the fight, or bend over and take it?
I think not.
Over ten million hunters armed with scoped deer rifles take to the woods every Autumn. Something to think about.
SWAT guys don't live in masks and kevlar.
Sometimes they like to swing a golf club or a fishing rod, or go shopping at Target.
Good. That's as it should be. Our message is getting through.
The oath we took, before marching to rifle ranges, was to protect the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC.
Try to erase the 2nd by judicial fiat, and the "Rule of 5" (black robed tyrants) will be superceded by Rule 308.
Only then will you learn which side the military is on: that of defending the Constitution, or that of the domestic enemies of same.
That is why the founders included the second amendment.
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”
Noah Webster, 1787
“An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution”
I predict that if the US SC agrees to hear Silveira, then the decision will be that, yes, there is an individual right to keep and bear, but that the state still has "a compelling interest" in banning the ownership of certain "very dangerous" weapons. They will thereby uphold the California law and keep the door open for further restrictions, and we will be at exactly the same place we are in today, except that now there will be a very bad Supreme Court decision to stand as precedent.
Just like Affirmative action, we will then have the same level of uncertainty in both state and federal law.
The University of Michigan decision has made it clear that the SC has no problem whatever in handing down rulings that not only violate the Constitution (the 14th Amendemtn's Equal Protection Clause), but they also have no problem violating the Separation of Powers in that they amended the Constitution by mandate. A very bad sign of things to come.
If the court agrees to hear this case, the best decision that they are capable of making in light of last week's bad rulings would be that California's AW ban is Constitutional, and that even though there is an individual right to keep and bear, the state has a "reasonable compelling interest" in banning certain "especially dangerous" weapons. That keeps us in the same place we are in today. I would rather have them take up such a case AFTER we have successfully lobbied to allow the federal AW ban to sunset. An unfavorable opinion in Silveira, might embolden the rat-bastards (both Repubos and RATs proper) to renew the damn federal ban.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.