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."
Another Founding Father who could tell the difference between state governments and Congress.
Are you trying to say "XIV"?
Actual facts are good.
LOL! Since when does that make the slightest difference to an activist SCOTUS that views the Consotutiona as a "living" malleable document? 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.
And IF the court were to 'rule' otherwise; -- this government of the people, and by the people, -- would see a major constitutional crisis. Politically, such a crisis will not be chanced.
States 'rights' to prohibit guns or sex will lose.
Bet on it.
Even the Rinocrat "liberal elite" are not stupid enough to bring this issue to a crisis.
Only you fanatical 'moralists' are that zealous.
Wipe the slather off your mouth.
Silveira is a sure loser.
Advocates of centralized power and judicial legislation have never secured those rights in any degree.
In his defense, I will say that I've never seen any indication that KC is a gun-grabber.
The Second Amendment was declaratory of a previously implicit limit on Congressional power.
Another lurking Freeper is watching and waiting....
Restrictions on the federal government restrict the federal government. Not very hard to understand.
So the FedGov can outlaw Slavery, but the State's could re-institute it?
Get a grip.
So the FedGov can outlaw Slavery, but the State's could re-institute it?
Wrong.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
You are still delusional...
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.