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 used the term "boot lickers" before I read the posts after mine, which suggested you were, I intended no offense
Sheesh! What a useless little tin toy. Surely you can do better than that.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the history of the "Liberator.
A friend of mine owns an instructive piece of history. It is a small, crude pistol, made out of sheet-metal stampings by the U.S. during World War II. While it fits in the palm of your hand and is a slowly-operated, single-shot arm, it's powerful .45 caliber projectile will kill a man with brutal efficiency.
With a short, smooth-bore barrel it can reliably kill only at point blank ranges, so its use requires the will (brave or foolhardy) to get in close before firing.
It is less a soldier's weapon than an assassin's tool. The U.S. manufactured them by the million during the war, not for our own forces but rather to be air-dropped behind German lines to resistance units in occupied Europe.
Crude and slow (the fired case had to be knocked out of the breech by means of a little wooden dowel, a fresh round procured from the storage area in the grip and then manually reloaded and cocked) and so wildly innaccurate it couldn't hit the broad side of a French barn at 50 meters, to the Resistance man or woman who had no firearm it still looked pretty darn good.
The theory and practice of it was this: First, you approach a German sentry with your little pistol hidden in your coat pocket and, with Academy-award sincerity, ask him for a light for your cigarette (or the time the train leaves for Paris, or if he wants to buy some non-army-issue food or a perhaps half-hour with your "sister").
When he smiles and casts a nervous glance down the street to see where his Sergeant is at, you blow his brains out with your first and only shot, then take his rifle and ammunition. Your next few minutes are occupied with "getting out of Dodge," for such critters generally go around in packs.
After that (assuming you evade your late benefactor's friends) you keep the rifle and hand your little pistol to a fellow Resistance fighter so they can go get their own rifle.
More info here:
LOL! Since when does that make the slightest difference to an activist SCOTUS that views the Consotutiona as a "living" malleable document? Are you really that stupid?
This SCOTUS legislates according to what's trendy and acceptable to the liberal elite of which they are members. Sodomy is trendy and acceptable. Guns are not.
Rejoice in your precious sodomy victory, tpaine. You're about to lose your guns.
It's been said before and bears repeating: libertarians are the left's useful idiots.
If libertarians ever did stumble across a clue, they'd lose it, eat it, or urinate on it.
Personally, I don't have any problem understanding "shall not be infringed".
They didn't even need a Constitutional Amendment or a court ruling to do that, now did they?
Even you couldn't be that stupid
Or smoke it.
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." -- John Adams
" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..." -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 29
What he means is that the JBTs that bootlickers like you worship ought to be facing men armed and armoured as they are behind every door they kick in.
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" -- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
All it takes is dedication... Or fanaticism. However, to those who don't understand "dedication" or "loyalty to cause", fanaticism is the preferred title.
I remember an attempted SWAT incursion in Texas... I remember several dead and injured SWAT officers/agents and a lot of embarassment as they raised a white flag to retreat(which they were permitted to do), due to running out of ammunition versus the "cache" of firearms held by the "fanatics" they were trying to arrest. They left on the losing side of that fight. And the debatably innocent died honorably when they refused to surrender as they were "un"intentionally burned alive for their refusal to surrender. I would say "From my Cold Dead Hands" was applicable in that scenario. Sometimes Freedom isn't free, and sometimes you have to die to attain it.
Just because you die at the hands of a SWAT team, after fighting for your life, does not mean they are the victors... In some mentalities, that would be preferred to capture... Your profile says you served, meaning you possibly see the honor in fighting to the death versus capture.
that he recognized the differences between the federal government and the states, unlike ignorant fanatics.
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.