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."

[Radioactive]

That is what the second amendment was all about. Sorry, but if and or when it becomes nessesary to change our government, the ones in power will have all the guns. They will not give up power willingly.

The truth is that this country will not last. And so who cares if what someone says results in the loss of a freedom. Things must and will get worse before it gets better.

[xring]

"...country will not last... ...who cares... "?!

SHEEESH! I thought MY post was a downer.

[MindBender26]

No, I would not have supported slavery, and would have worked within the law to change it. Nor would I have advocated getting up on rooftops to shoot down and murder slave owners, abolitionists or any other person.

The problem you don't see is that when you make such outragous statements as you do, you only serve to put ammunition into the hands of those who would remove all private ownership of firearms.

You can't see that you and those who believe in murdering anyone who does not agree with you are the reason No Guns Chuck Shummer and the others have any standing with the swing voters.

Thank God the NRA is run by sane men.

[MindBender26]

But what if the people who decide it's alright to "shoot the tyrants" are Jessie Jackson and his ilk?

[MineralMan]

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

Might as well be. You keep posting that photo, with the stupid T-shirt on the guy with the .50 BMG sniper rifle. Apparently you agree with the sentiment. Again, the T-shirt poops on our right to vote at the ballot box. Are you saying that people who vote opposite to your opinion should be shot? I certainly hope not.

[MineralMan]

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

No, fictional Florida detective, it's you who doesn't get it. You apparently think that all patriotic citizens support your position. They do not. The SCOTUS is specified in the Constitution as the body which decides constitutional issues.

I swore an oath to defend the Constitution. Since the SCOTUS is clearly defined in the body of the Constitution, you can count on me (and my arms) to honor that oath.

Your .50 BMG sniper rifle is not the only weapon in the land. Your T-shirt does not express the sentiments of all patriotic citizens.

If someone starts shooting Supreme Court justices, I'll volunteer to defend them in their homes and on the street. They're constitutional, Mr. fictional detective. I swore an oath, and stand by it.

If you think you won't find the Justices homes and travel paths defended by loyal Americans, you're way deceived.

I'm just as serious as you are, my friend. And I may well be a better shot than you are.

Oh, wait. You said that wasn't your t-shirt. Never mind. My T-shirt says, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and it _is_ my t-shirt.

The SCOTUS is the body specified in our precious Constitution that has the responsibility to determine Constitutional questions. If you don't like that, you'll have to amend the Constitution. Attack the USA, and you'll answer to me and a whole bunch of folks who are also armed, starting with the FBI and the military.

I don't advise it.

[JSC3716]

Actually, more often than you realize.Having quite a bit of experience in the field, I can tell you many times they screw up and the bad guy gets away.

[Squantos]

In a language I can understand I'd like your opinion on this if ya have time !

Stay Safe !

[Libertina]

Ditto

[Travis McGee]

Please list a few of my "outrageous statements" here and now.

[Travis McGee]

If the SCOTUS declares that firearms may only belong to the militia as defined today as the National Guard, and your state passes a law demanding that you turn yours in, will you obey that law?

Yes or no will be fine.

[Travis McGee]

To me the t-shirt means that when the right to vote is nullified, as for example by the Rule of Five saying that the second amendment is null and void etc, then the five tyrants in black robes are the domestic enemies.

If they want to rule the country as five tyrants from the bench, regardless of how we vote or who we elect or the laws our representatives pass, then they are domestic enemies and will be dealt with as such.

[Travis McGee]

you and those who believe in murdering anyone who does not agree with you...

Put words in my mouth I never said will you?

"Mindbender 26 believes in licking the boots of every swaggering Nazi who goose-steps past, and helping the SS shove Jews into ovens, as long as it's done under the rule of law, uber alles.

Turnabout is fair play, jack boot licker.

[First Amendment]

Crawford said the law would make Missouri a safer place and give criminals something to think about.

With the decisions the SCOTUS has been handing down, they're doing a great job of destroying the country in the absence of Al Qaeda. Who needs outside terrorists when you've got the extreme leftists in the robes is DC? I hope no one gets offended by my statment - but there are two ways to destroy a country - from within and without, and from within is the more dangerous, because peoples' souls and character are destroyed, which ultimately is worse than death.

[The Duke]

I once thought the second amendment was a necessary component of America's "checks and balances", but that was before Nicolae Ceausescu was executed live on Romanian television - before Corey Aquino took power in the Phillipines - and before the fall of the Iron Curtain.

Nevertheless, I am still very much pro-Second-Amendment, as I'm not in the habit of giving my rights away.

[Euro-American Scum]

A bad decision would be worse than waiting would have been.

A bad decision will mean the end of the Second Amendment. It would be open season for states to arbitrarily ban any class of firearms they choose to, and to do it with impunity.

[Chemist_Geek]

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.

You are totally wrong. The "cold-dead-hands-water-the-Tree-of-Liberty-ten-million-deer-rifles" types are nowhere to be found when there is work to be done like campaigning, tesifying before the legislatures, getting the word out, etc. Of those activities which you list, the volunteers doing them are rarely, if ever, the "cold-dead-hands-water-the-Tree-of-Liberty-ten-million-deer-rifles" types.

And that's a good thing; they should just shut up and stay in their compounds or bunkers. They alienate the very people which we need to make friendly to our cause.

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.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. It will be won by reasoned discussion in the halls of the legislatures and courtrooms, not by masturbatory fantasies of "voting from the rooftops."

[eno_]

Guns are the last thing you want to use to raise the cost of opression to unacceptable levels. It is much easier to cripple JBTs and make them a permanent burden than it is to kill them.

If there is a revolution in the country it will be fought with improvised weapons. Defending against those weapons will be much more difficult than defending against guns.

[eno_]

SWAT guys don't live in masks and kevlar.

That, of course, is the correct answer. When JBTs families start complaining about how life is unlivable in their communities, THAT is what raises the cost of opression to unsustainable levels.