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."

[MineralMan]

"Yes, I can imagine the circumstances. I just don't make a point of yakking about them in public."

What, you mean you don't have one of those Vote with your trigger finger T-shirts? [grin]

[MineralMan]

"One interesting possibility that a friend of mine puts forth, though he's admittedly biased, is that the Ninth Circuit could agree to hear en banc the Nordyke v. King case and reverse the Hickman decision on the Second Amendment issue, and then moot the Silveira case. "

I'm afraid I'll have to look those cases up. I don't spend all that much time on 2A issues.

[Betty Jane]

If I were a gun grabber, I would start asking myself, when is the last time a SWAT team a crime?

What??? Speak up, I have artillery ears. I must have missed part of that sentence. d;^)

I guess I should decode for those who can't read invisible ink. When was the last a SWAT team PREVENTED a crime?

[mvpel]

Nordyke v. King is a case seeking to overturn an Alameda County local ordinance banning possession of firearms on county property, with the express intent of making it impossible to hold gun shows at the county fairgrounds.

Its attorney feels that the SCOTUS may be more comfortable rendering a Second Amendment decision that overturns a local county ordinance rather than a 15-page statutory scheme enacted by a vote of the California legislature.

Its petition for en-banc review by the Ninth Circuit was finalized on June 6th, and it will be put up for a vote on granting or denying the petition by the 50-some judges of the Ninth Circuit in the near future.

[Travis McGee]

Glad to hear that you would have supported slavery in 1862, or if it was reinstated today.

All of the Jews marched into gas chambers were doing so under the "rule of (Nazi) law".

[Travis McGee]

115 is spot on.

[Bogolyubski]

You make a very good point. If more of the soft anti-gun folks could be exposed to the idea that their lives and neighborhoods are actually safer when law abiding citizens are able to own firearms, we might start to neutralize some of the hard-left propaganda that they've been swallowing all these years. If the soccer-moms realize that the neighbors down the street are armed and able to respond to a criminal emergency faster than any police force can, and that the very presence of such neighbors often causes the criminal element to look for an easier target, minds can be changed on this issue over time.

Of course, if the Supreme Court basically guts the second amendment and we actually see a gun grab here such as those that have already taken place in Canada and Australia, all bets are off. I expect that few folks realize just how destructive the Grutter ruling was. The 14th amendment has been abolished for non-preferred racial groups for all intents and purposes. Since there is now a "compelling state interest" (Diversity) that trumps a cornerstone amendment to the constitution (equal protection of the laws), that or additional "compelling interests" can easily trump any and all of the Bill of Rights. It was probably a bad move to try and force the issue before this particular court, given its totalitarian leanings.

[Travis McGee]

Not many domestic enemies would have to be plinked for all of them to feel those crosshairs every moment they stepped outside.

[gatex]

'...I'm afraid I'll have to look those cases up...."

Hickman was a 9th Circuit case that said individuals did not have a right to weapons.

[Travis McGee]

Fine. BTW, it's not my t-shirt.

[spodefly]

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?

2A Revised: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of gay black people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

[Travis McGee]

There would be no violent overthrow...there aren't enough people who care enough to carry it out.

You really don't get it. That's obvious.

[Travis McGee]

Ping.

[gatex]

Link to Hickman---

Hickman v. Block no. 94-55836

[George W. Bush]

Thanks for the thread. We don't have enough RKBA threads these days. Keep us posted!!

[Atlas Sneezed]

'What that shirt really says is "When I fail to be able to convince a majority of the people, it's all right for me to shoot them." '

I read it as saying that when the tyranny of the majority overthrows the constitution, then it's all right to shoot the tyrants. Kind of like 228+ years ago, when the majority was happy, but a minority fought for the principle of liberty without taking a vote.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"Actually, the military would support the Rule of Law, as they always have. That's why the good ole boys of the Alabama National Guard protected Black people from the likes of Sheriff Jim Clark and the other sheet-wearing cowards at the Edmund Pettis Bridge."

Those guardsmen were upholding THE CONSTITUTION over the tyrannical "law" of Alabama, if you want my spin.

[xring]

You are DEAD wrong. It is precisely the "out of my cold dead hands" folks who are fighting the grass roots war to promote concealed carry and to repeal the stupid anti-gun laws on the books. Maybe not in socialist Minnesota but truely in the rest of the country.

We of the "cold dead hands" variety IMO seem to be the only ones who have the courage to man the campaign phones, stand before local council meetings against anti-gun ordinances, confront anti-gun rhetoric on the spot, volunteer to man tables at gun shows, testify before committees at our state houses, put our money where our mouth is and lead the fight to preserve the Second Amendment by example.

And should the time come, offer the ultimate sacrifice in the war against socialism, which is where this anti-gun crap comes from.

This issue will not be won by quasi-intellectual debates about the SCOTUS, it will be won at the grass roots and, if necessary, on the battlefield.

[kitchen]

Every newspaper story about some wacko with a "cache" or an "arsenal" brings out the hard-liners.

Just to understand your position, please tell me:

1. how much ammunition constitutes a cache;
2. how many firearms are needed to cross the arsenal threshold; and
3. do certain firearms contribute more weight to the arsenal threshold, i.e., are a dozen bolt action .22 rimfires equal to a dozen 1911s or AR-15s?

[TheEaglehasLanded]

We should use right to privacy argument on this, if govt cant regulate sex in the home they shouldn't regulate guns in the home either.