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."

[eno_]

This is a bad case brought to the court at a bad time.

Did you have a good time in mind, or is your view, as with the TSA, that we are better off bending over and taking it?

[Atlas Sneezed]

"While they may, indeed rule that there is an individual right, rather that a collective right, they'll also rule that states may restrict that right in certain ways."

I am confident you are wrong here. Even the Silveira petition does not ask for a review on whether these tyepes of rifles may be banned. That is a factual issue that has not yet been tried, and SCOTUS is well known for its reluctance to rule on issues that are not before it. The conventional wisdom is to remand it for a trial in California, and let judges make rulings, before deciding whether to take on another appeal as to whether those rulings are in error.

[eno_]

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

Now you are quite deluded. I used to drive past an IRS facility on my way to a consulting gig. Also on my route was a major defense contractor's factory where missiles are manufactured. The IRS office is surrounded by a high razor-wire topped fence. The missile factory (after 9/11) posts a guard at the front gate to watch what had been an unattended card access gate, and has an ordinary chain link fence around the parking lot.

A police detail shows up twice a day to "direct traffic" in front of the IRS building. While the much larger missile factory only gets a police guard if there is a picket line (strikers, not protesters) outside.

I am as ordinary and law-abiding guy as you could meet, but if I had the chance to f*ck over an IRS, ATF, or other JBT, and get away with it I'd do it in a heartbeat. If one of their kids came to me for a letter of reccomendation, I'd make it "qualified." I would never associate with them socially. I would not do business with them. If I saw someone harm one of these people, I might not remember what they looked like.

Why? because these JBTs have long past the description in the Declaration of agents of tyrrany.

I might not take up arms right away, but I'm sure those that would know the murder solution rate has fallen to about 60% - much less in some places. That decline is one product of a law enforcement system that has stopped caring about real crime and has become corrupt and preoccupied with political correctness.

[Atlas Sneezed]

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

If they want to join in with an effort to stop an overthrow of the Constitution, fine.

We're not talking about violence for its own sake, we are talking about defending the Constitution.

(And history generally waits to see which side prevails before defining them as either criminals/terrorists or patriotic freedom fighters.)

[Atlas Sneezed]

"It would be open season for states to arbitrarily ban any class of firearms they choose to, and to do it with impunity."

Don't worry about the states, because you can always "vote with your feet" and move to freedom in another state. It is the federal government to fear (though state JBTs will likely be the enforcers of federal tyranny.)

[Atlas Sneezed]

"...masturbatory fantasies of "voting from the rooftops."

Funny how it is those reacting against the most ardent, principled 2nd Amendment defenders who seem always to bring up the sexual aspects of firearms. What would Freud think?

[MineralMan]

". Do you believe we, as a nation were wrong to stop Hitler. And is that kind of tyranny OK with you?

"

This is not Germany. We do not have a Hitler. And, no, that kind of tyranny is definitely not OK with me. The point is moot, however. We have no such tyranny.

[MineralMan]

"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.


"

No. But that's not going to happen.

[MineralMan]

"I am as ordinary and law-abiding guy as you could meet, but if I had the chance to f*ck over an IRS, ATF, or other JBT, and get away with it I'd do it in a heartbeat. If one of their kids came to me for a letter of reccomendation, I'd make it "qualified." "

I see. Sadly, that is not how a law-abiding guy behaves. This is why I could never align myself with the hard-core RKBA advocates. If you do these things, then you are far from a "law-abiding guy."

Worst of all is to punish the children of these people you seem to hate so much. How awful.

[gatex]

"...your state passes a law demanding that you turn yours in, will you obey that law? ---- Yes or no will be fine. ----- " No. But that's not going to happen."...

It has already happened in New York, California, and Massachusetts.

[MineralMan]

""...your state passes a law demanding that you turn yours in, will you obey that law? ---- Yes or no will be fine. ----- " No. But that's not going to happen."...
It has already happened in New York, California, and Massachusetts."

You asked what I would do. I do not own any firearms that fall under the CA law. So, I did not turn in what I did not own.

My firearms are all sporting firearms. While such are also useful for defense, that is not their main function in my household.

I own a fine old Springfield conversion deer rifle, a couple of shotguns, one a Mossberg 500 12 ga. pump and the other a wonderful old Ithaca Ultralight 20 ga. double. I do own an original 1911 Colt .45, but I rarely fire it these days. That's it, except for a couple of Crosman pump pellet guns.

None of these fall under the CA assault weapons ban, and I have no plans to buy any firearms that resemble military weapons. I've absolutely no use for such a weapon. The Mossberg is just fine for home defense, and I have no plans to go sniping for anything other than mule deer. The .45 I consider a collector's item only. The pellet guns are for target shooting as a diversion.

So, I didn't fall under the CA laws. I didn't need to give up any of my firearms.

[MindBender26]

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

Put words in my mouth I never said will you?

I know a failing memory is one of the first signs of ....., but in order to help you, I direct your attention to YOUR post # 103, to the QUOTE in the photograph YOU posted (do you remember now?)

The QUOTE is "When all else fails, vote from the rooftops."

Next to that QUOTE, in the picture YOU posted is a picture of a long-range rifle complete with scope and bipod.

Now you may want to try the Clintonesque approach of claiming you really mean polling places should be on rooftops or we should all throw hanging chads from rooftops, but I think 99% of FReepers have no trouble understanding the message in YOUR post: "When you don't agree with an election or court decision, it's Ok to go up to the rooftop with your rifle and shoot people."

That's called murder, sir, and it's generally frowned upon in polite society.

In your most lucid moments, don't you understand that sort of loony logic simply provides solid ammunition to those who want to destroy 2d Amendment guarantees?

Don’t you understand that most gun owners, if asked if someone who thinks that way needs a trigger lock, would reply that what they really need is a locked, padded cell in the funny farm.

Frankly, Sir, by posting a photograph of that sort of logic, I wouldn't trust you to play in traffic or order a ham and swiss, hold the mayo, without screwing it up.

But you want us to trust you to make decisions affecting our Constitution??????

Please, if you are shooting real bullets downrange, I hope your marksmanship is better than you leadership, logic… or memory.

[MineralMan]

"Would you feel the same if say...Hillary or someone of her ilk were the next president? "

If Hillary Clinton becomes President, it will be because she won the election, according to the rules set forth in our Constitution for the election of Presidents.

She will have Congress and the Courts as checks on her power, just as all Presidents do.

You see, I support the entire Constitution, not just some parts of it. Most of the document is about electing officials and their separate powers, depending on the branch of government they're part of.

The 2nd Amendment is one, just one, of the amendments to our Constitution. It is not, and never has been, the whole document.

The Supreme Court of the United States is described quite nicely in the body of the document. It is, and remains, the arbiter of constitutional issues, among other things. That is its defined role.

Some RKBA hard-liners here appear to want to throw out the Constitution altogether, and start over with some sort of new government system. Those people I will fight, since I swore an oath to defend the _entire_ Constitution.

We have all the tools we need to change the Constitution. If changes are needed, we have the Amendment process which can alter any aspect of the document. It has been used a number of times, some for good, some not for good.

We had an amendment which instituted Prohibition. Once it was discovered to be a very idea, we passed another amendment that struck it down.

Those who want changes in the powers of the SCOTUS need only pass a new amendment to the Constitution to redefine that body's power.

Taking up arms is not necessary. All that is necessary is to convince the people of this country, in their majority, that change is needed. It's been done before.

Those who take up arms rather than convincing their fellow Americans that their ideas should be implemented are true domestic enemies of the Consitution.

And there it is. We have a system that can be changed nonviolently by the people. It's been done many times. So, if you want change, get out there and start convincing folks.

[Travis McGee]

You ran away from my question with your non-answer in 188, which is not a surprise.

So we are not talking about the same things. I am talking about what would happen AFTER a gun ban. You are saying "it will never happen".

What we are talking about are actions which might follow AFTER a gun ban.

Now, if you're not a coward, please answer the question like a man, "yes or no", not "b-b-b-b-ut."

[Travis McGee]

"When all else fails, vote from the rooftops."

"When all else fails" = Hitler is in charge. Guns are banned. Free speech is outlawed. Our elections resemble those in the Soviet Union or Zombabwe.

THAT is "when all else fails." THAT is what we are talking about.

Of course, you will be carrying a banner in front of the goose-stepping legions, singing "rule of law uber alles" as you go to collect illegal firearms and unwanted minorities for legal trips to the gulag.

[MineralMan]

"Hey MM, 80% of the American people didn't want NAFTA or GATT, but here we are. Man, I prey to GOD you're right. The absolute last thing I want is a conflict on our soil. Those who say "bring it on" don't realize they may very well have to sacrifice EVERYTHING and EVERYONE they love. It's a no win situation. But I believe, life without liberty is no life at all."

Well, it's up to you to convince people to elect people who will do as you think best. If you cannot do that, then you will have to live with the government that is elected. That's our system.

I advise that you begin soon, though. The next election is almost upon us.