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."

[KEVLAR]

How does that make it harder?

[MineralMan]

"Unfortunately, those of us who work the legislatures and courts to protect our rights, have to fight the damage caused by such yahoos before we can make progress..."

Sad, but true. And just when we're seeing _some_ progress, as with the Minnesota CCW law just passed.

[autoresponder]

One Supreme Court Justice once said "When the citzens of the United States lose respect for our decisions, the laws of our country will mean nothing".

Compare this statement to the rapidly growing 20%+ of those that have now withdrawn from paying income taxes.

When SCOTUS makes some more equal then others, those "preferred diversity" persons become invisible to those "less diverse".

You can never have "too much gun"!

[Chuckster]

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;^)

[MineralMan]

"I find your logic rather strange. If it is a right has God declared he is to take it from us? Because no mere mortal has the authority to take a right from me. I will remove any such person from the gene pool.
"

Has not that right already been taken from you, Crusader? How many laws will it take? Idle threats, IMO.

[MineralMan]

"When was the last time someone got away from a SWAT team surrounding them?
When was the last time a SWAT team got away when they were surrounded?"

Oh, very good. Now, how many folks in your squad, eh? So far, I've seen no SWAT temas surrounded, but I've seen a lot of SWAT teams surrounding houses with "caches" of firearms. So far, it's SWAT winning them all. I don't see any changes coming.

[autoresponder]

The obvious solution for the idiotic 10-cartridge magazine law is to carry 2 or more firearms at once.

Quicker then reloading, more dramatic effect on felons too!

Of the same caliber, easier with handguns then longarms.

Read your federal and state firearms laws and BATF regs.

See what years of arms are covered by law, which are exempt.

Purchase, transfer, private sales, shipment, carry.

I will not give you all the goodies here; let's just say loopholes abound and are written in stone...

[berserker]

Link to 9th Circuit appellate decision Silveira v. Lockyer (pdf format).

[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

"One Supreme Court Justice once said "When the citzens of the United States lose respect for our decisions, the laws of our country will mean nothing".

He's wrong. The rulings will mean nothing and the law (Constitution) will mean everything.

[autoresponder]

Correct in your statement, BUT:

His quote refers to the American citizenry then losing respect for SCOTUS and all judiciary, then selectively ignoring any and all laws, as would suit them.

Otherwise all would become lefties, so to speak.......

[mvpel]

They talk a big game, about how they'll shoot gun-grabbing cops right between the eyes, blah blah blah, but they don't show up at NRA Members' Council meetings, they don't register to vote, and they alienate the vast middle ground to which we need to appeal.

[Chemist_Geek]

Anti-firearms-rights forces can be divided into two major categories. The first, and the smallest, are the virulently anti-gun limosuine liberals who are the ones most vilified here. They are the ones who want to have house-to-house searches, midnight raids, etc. They're the worst of the gun-grabbers, and fortunately they're also the fewest in number.

The second group, much more numerous, are those who aren't familiar with firearms. Most soccer-moms fall into this category; they just want to live in peace and quiet, and they think that banning guns will make their lives safer. Since they are not familiar with Bad Guys or firearms, that's not too outlandish a proposition to their minds.

Fortunately, they can be reached. If we gently educate the soft majority of anti-firearms-rights people then we are able to realize that responsible, reasonable gun owners aren't the source of their fears. Then, after being educated and realizing that, they'll no longer support foolish wastes of time like the Evil Black Rifle ban or oppose concealed carry laws. Michigan Governor Jenny Granholm was, while she was Attorney General, opposed to the (relatively new; enacted 2000) shall-issue CCW law. She recanted that position - she said that we CPL holders aren't dangerous like she thought we were. This doesn't mean she's no longer opposed to us, but she's seeing the light.

When the mouth-breathers show up, banging their shoes and shouting about "crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you" and so forth, that drives the soft anti-gunners into the arms of the hard anti-gunners. Those yahoos on the pro-rights side only hurt us by scaring the bejezesus out of the soft antis and hardening their hearts against us.

We don't hear it much in here on FR because this is a pretty good echo chamber, but amongst the general public gun owners and gun ownership don't have the best image. Yes, that's the anti-gun media at work, but those yahoos are giving them the ammunition! The virulently anti-gunners will ruthlessly exploit anything we let them. Let's not scare people off from at least leaving us alone, and at best becoming gun owners themselves.

[PatrioticAmerican]

One way or another, this issue needs to be decided.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"So far, it's SWAT winning them all. I don't see any changes coming."

that just goes to show how law abiding we as a people are. Corner us all and that would change.

[toothless]

The Kentucky state motto comes to mind...

http://homeschooling.about.com/library/blkymotto.htm

[Crusader21stCentury]

I have my weapons, so no it hasn't been taken. Because some idiot declares himself King and says my weapons are illegal means nothing. When that fool comes calling to enforce his lunacy I have no intention of staying baricaded in one place. I have resources available, and a certain amount of knowledge to use those resources. I most certainly will be consequential.

[mvpel]

That's true without a doubt, but ought we not stack the deck in our favor?

[MineralMan]

"Let's not scare people off from at least leaving us alone, and at best becoming gun owners themselves.

"

What you said. I've owned firearms since I was 12 years old, qualified Expert with the M-16 in the USAF, and have hunted all my life.

The "out of my cold, dead hands" folks scare the crap out of me. They alienate the very group of people we need to keep our firearms with their poisonous rhetoric.

It's not that group who are working to pass laws like the new CCW laws in Minnesota. They're actually doing nothing to preserve our RKBA. Nothing. Instead, they're managing to make a large group of citizens who don't usually think about firearms angry as heck and worried, too.

It's hard enough to educate non-owners without the rhetoric from the hard-liners.

Bottom line is that there aren't enough of those hard-liners to do much of anything. I don't see them showing up to defend folks who are being arrested with their "caches" of firearms. I don't see much of them at all, except to rant about some mythical "revolution."

They do not help the cause of firearms ownership in any way. Indeed, they harm that cause materially.

[no-s]

Perhaps you're forgetting the circumstances that led to the "shot heard round the world," i.e. gun confiscation...

No matter where we go in these United States, there is a governmental body willing to assert the second amendment is not what it says.

[Crusader21stCentury]

You apparently do not know what a right is. A God given right cannot be taken away. You keep describing it like a "Drivers License" where permission can be removed. That attitude shows you have already been sheared. I prefer to have every politician worry that 100,000 may sneak into Washington DC over night.