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."

[MineralMan]

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

Indeed we are. You can't "corner us all," and there's no move to do so. Every newspaper story about some wacko with a "cache" or an "arsenal" brings out the hard-liners. But where were they when this arrest was being made? Were they out there protecting the wacko's RKBA? No? Right.

I see a lot of carefully-hedged threats here on FR. I discount them all. It's like the old days in the 20s and 30s, when the byword of the Communist Party of the United States was "Come the revolution....."

Sure, when the revolution comes, we'll all have pie in the sky. There is no revolution coming. Those of us who are working to preserve and improve our RKBA are having some success, as in Minnesota. The threats don't help at all.

If you say "out of my cold dead hands" often enough, someone might start thinking about taking you at your word. It's happened often enough in history.

I remember some blowhard talking in another forum about his "compound" in the desert. Man, to hear him talk, he had all the firepower he would ever need to stand off any force. He was tough, no question. I asked him how his "compound" would stand up to an air to ground missile fired from a chopper or an A-10.

Those who believe that this wonderful nation can be overthrown by a tiny little minority of folks with hand-carried weapons are in the pie in the sky category.

We have every means we need to change this nation, and they're all right there in the Constitution. It starts at the local level and expands from there. It is the only method that will work, and we're wasting time. Idle threats are useless. Convincing folks is worthwhile. We'd better get started, 'cause the other side is working pretty hard.

[mvpel]

And if you're registered to vote, and vote in every election, then congratulations.

If not, shame on you.

[mvpel]

You've been sheared yourself a bit - the right to travel freely is part of the right to pursuit of happiness.

[MineralMan]

"The Liberator"

Now, there you go. A tin pistol that takes ten seconds to load a single round. The "Liberator." A mass-produced zip gun more likely to injure the holder than the target.

Sheesh! What a useless little tin toy. Surely you can do better than that.

[MineralMan]

"I have my weapons, so no it hasn't been taken. "

So do I, and so do millions of other Americans. We are the most armed civilian population in the world, I think.

[MineralMan]

"And if you're registered to vote, and vote in every election, then congratulations.

If not, shame on you.
"

Good point. I wonder how many of the hard-liners refuse to register to vote so no records will be kept of them. I wonder how many of them are avoiding taxes and keeping just one step away from a status as a felon who has no right to own firearms at all.

[Southack]

Which mental midget thought it wise to take a 2nd Amendment case to the SCOTUS now, rather than after Bush gets 2 or 3 new Appointments onto the bench?

Do we have some kind of infiltrator who **WANTS** us to lose by going in front of the Lawrence Justices now, rather than for us to WIN later after we change the makeup of the Court?

Or do we just have some pure, Grade A idiots pushing this case now?

[mvpel]

The idea was to shove it into the kidneys of a German soldier and fire, then take his Mauser or Sten.

[Crusader21stCentury]

Why, yes I am as an independent. And shame on you for cowering to your rulers.

[NeoCaveman]

Do we have some kind of infiltrator who **WANTS** us to lose by going in front of the Lawrence Justices now, rather than for us to WIN later after we change the makeup of the Court?

Either that, or idiots....

[MineralMan]

"The idea was to shove it into the kidneys of a German soldier and fire, then take his Mauser or Sten."

Yes, I understand what the idea of the "Liberator" was. If I'm not mistaken, it didn't work, really. Of those 1,000,000 manufactured, I wonder just how many were ever used. There don't seem to be any stories of their use out there.

They're curiosities, that's all. I guess there are a few of them in collectors' hands, but I doubt that any large number were used for their supposed purpose. I saw one web site where someone discussed actually firing one of these things. Braver guy than me.

[MineralMan]

"Do we have some kind of infiltrator who **WANTS** us to lose by going in front of the Lawrence Justices now, rather than for us to WIN later after we change the makeup of the Court?

Either that, or idiots...."

Or there's another possibility. Maybe there are those who would like the SCOTUS to decide once and for all that individuals do _not_ have the right to keep and bear military-style arms. Given who's bringing this case and their web content, I'm suspicious about this.

Obviously, this is not the time to test the court.

But, it doesn't matter. The court will not hear this case...I guarantee it.

[riverrunner]

Bad timeing when would be good timing we have had people thrown in prison killed and burnt to death. Because on one want to take a case forward. Inaction is the same as bad action of the court.

[mvpel]

Well la ti dah. And just because I'm not willing to charge headlong into deadly armed conflict with the government doesn't mean that I'm cowering to my rulers.

[mvpel]

What's your reasoning for the conclusion that the court won't hear this case?

[need_a_screen_name]

and they alienate the vast middle ground to which we need to appeal.

That could also be said of the staunch anti-abortion litmus test types.

[MineralMan]

"What's your reasoning for the conclusion that the court won't hear this case?"

I don't think the SCOTUS has any desire or intention to hear any real 2nd Amendment cases right now. They can't be forced to take such a case, and simply have no reason to do so.

You'll note that the NRA and other large RKBA organizations aren't even trying to bring a case to the SCOTUS. Why? Because they know, for one thing, that the court's not going to hear one and, for another thing, that any decision the SCOTUS would render if they _did_ take a case would not be the decision desired by RKBA advocates.

That's just an opinion, of course, like everything I write here.

[Garrisson Lee]

The time for what?

Time to make the donuts?

You know what time it is.

[Garrisson Lee]

You'll note that the NRA and other large RKBA organizations aren't even trying to bring a case to the SCOTUS

I seem to recall the NRA tried to get into this suit but were kept out. Probably for fear that they would undermine it.

[mvpel]

The NRA filed an amicus brief in this case opposing the petition for en banc rehearing, in fact.