Skip to comments.
Potentially Historic Second Amendment Lawsuit Petitioned to Supreme Court (Silveira)
KeepAndBearArms.com ^
| July 3, 2003
| KeepAndBearArms.com
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."
TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; US: California
KEYWORDS: 2a; bang; banglist; bloat; gorski; lockyer; molonlabe; secondamendment; silveira; silveiravlockyer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 321-337 next last
To: MineralMan
I have just one question for such folks: When was the last time someone got away from a SWAT team surrounding themWell, what if the SWAT team were inturn surrounded? Most things take more than one to accomplish.
81
posted on
07/03/2003 2:15:24 PM PDT
by
Flint
To: Flint
"Well, what if the SWAT team were inturn surrounded? Most things take more than one to accomplish."
By whom? Certainly not by these lone-wolf RKBA hard-liners. I haven't seen any of them surrounding any of the situations where a SWAT team is working on a case. Where were they during the various "patriot" standoffs in the past few years?
Listening to the rhetoric, it's clear that each of these hard-liners is talking about solo actions, not any kind of organized action.
Of course, I don't hang out at the local paintball course. Maybe they're all there, shooting paintballs at each other and plotting the "revolution." Feh!
82
posted on
07/03/2003 2:21:07 PM PDT
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: mvpel
"Good luck, Mr. Gorski..."
To: mvpel
Forgetting the legal issue at hand (NRA Life Member here,) this is a horrible example of a self-agrandizing press release. A press release should bring undecided, middle-of-the-road people to your side, not blow smoke up the portholes of the ones already there!
In addition, he wraps it all in the theoretical, as opposed to discussing some specific cases where law abiding people suffered while criminals ran free. There is no "What's in it for me" here, when the "me" isn't an NRA member or even a gun owner, but simply some working stiff trying the pay the rent, keep his or her job, feed the kids, etc.
In addition, this is mejor mental masterbation for Mr. Gorski. I hope his legal writing is better than his "ain't I great" media contact prose.
84
posted on
07/03/2003 2:32:29 PM PDT
by
MindBender26
(For more news as it happens, stay tuned to your local FReeper station.........)
To: mrsmith
It's a constraint on ALL government. A State can not prohibit free speech, assembly, etc.
85
posted on
07/03/2003 2:33:52 PM PDT
by
MindBender26
(For more news as it happens, stay tuned to your local FReeper station.........)
To: mvpel
BAD TIMING on this.The supreme court of the United States simply CAN NOT BE TRUSTED to make the correct decision.We really need to wait till the deck is stacked in our favor.
To: Chuckster
SHOT, Over!
87
posted on
07/03/2003 2:35:15 PM PDT
by
MindBender26
(For more news as it happens, stay tuned to your local FReeper station.........)
To: autoresponder
"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."
Kinda like what the SCOTUS is doing right now.
To: MineralMan
Is this case ripe? It's certainly a multiple state constitutional issue, but is there a pressing need for a decision (in the mind of SCOTUS)?
89
posted on
07/03/2003 2:38:02 PM PDT
by
MindBender26
(For more news as it happens, stay tuned to your local FReeper station.........)
To: MineralMan
When was the last time someone got away from a SWAT team surrounding them?And my final answer is: Mogadishu!
90
posted on
07/03/2003 2:38:49 PM PDT
by
Pit1
To: Southack
Or do we just have some pure, Grade A idiots pushing this case now? I went to their website and read the petition they filed with the Supreme Court. After reading it, my opinion, as a lawyer, is that they are "pure, Grade A idiots."
To: MindBender26
"Is this case ripe? It's certainly a multiple state constitutional issue, but is there a pressing need for a decision (in the mind of SCOTUS)?
"
IMO, there will never be a case ripe enough for the SCOTUS to take on directly. Think about it.
Right now, the SCOTUS would almost certainly rule with the 9th Circuit, based on the arguments presented in that case. I could almost guarantee it.
You'd find the Bush administration filing amicus briefs in favor or the 9th Circuit's decision. Remember, Bush said he'd sign an extension of the AW ban. What makes anyone think he wouldn't support the CA law?
Frankly, I think this court would side with the 9th Circuit 7-2. Maybe 6-3, but I'll bet 7-2. Bush appointees? Forget about it. Anyone he could manage to squeeze through the Senate would probably vote with the 9th Circuit.
I don't forsee a "ripe" time for such a case. I'm pretty certain this court will pass, leaving the 9th Circuit's decision to stand without having to take their own stand.
I could be wrong, but that's my opinion on the issue.
92
posted on
07/03/2003 2:44:26 PM PDT
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: Pit1
"And my final answer is: Mogadishu!"
Non-responsive. Military actions are not what's being discussed here. You forget which side the military would be on, and it wouldn't be on the side of those who would overthrow our government. That ain't gonna happen.
93
posted on
07/03/2003 2:47:06 PM PDT
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: mvpel
"That's true without a doubt, but ought we not stack the deck in our favor?"
Yes, and no. Yes, that'd seem to be wise, but, no, as if this nation cannot have ANY composite supreme court and get justice then we need to update our version of the constitution. Lets let our system and her people, not politics, make our fate. It might hurt, but it would be worth it.
94
posted on
07/03/2003 2:50:40 PM PDT
by
PatrioticAmerican
(If the only way we can be Americans is to hide that fact, it's time for war.)
To: MindBender26
The Bill of Rights was only written to restrict the federal government.
I am sorry to see the number of people who forget that in their fervor.
Tell me, does this represent what you were taught happened at the Virginia ratification debate?
Patrick Henry: "This Constitution doesn't give enough power to the new government! We need a Bill of Rights to give it more power over us!"
95
posted on
07/03/2003 2:51:45 PM PDT
by
mrsmith
To: MineralMan
"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. "
You over estimate the government's hand and under estimate the citizen's.
Here's a great question for you. What will you do if the SC decides that firearms are a state's right and the federal government immediately bans all personally owned firearms? No BS, this is a serious question.
96
posted on
07/03/2003 2:53:51 PM PDT
by
PatrioticAmerican
(If the only way we can be Americans is to hide that fact, it's time for war.)
To: PatrioticAmerican
Corner us all and that would change. Corner us all some and that would not change.
Divide and conquer will ALWAYS work!!!
97
posted on
07/03/2003 2:55:47 PM PDT
by
Elsie
(Any misspellings are caused by a sticky keyboard!! [that darn ol' Coke!])
To: toothless
Yeah, but hasn't Kentucky's state documents been found to be 'unconstitutional' and banned from public buildings?
98
posted on
07/03/2003 2:56:50 PM PDT
by
PatrioticAmerican
(If the only way we can be Americans is to hide that fact, it's time for war.)
To: Elsie
"Divide and conquer will ALWAYS work!!!"
Yep, so let's stick together. I like Freepers. We argue like Hell but always together.
99
posted on
07/03/2003 2:58:35 PM PDT
by
PatrioticAmerican
(If the only way we can be Americans is to hide that fact, it's time for war.)
To: MineralMan
Agree completely. No certorarri granted
100
posted on
07/03/2003 3:09:54 PM PDT
by
MindBender26
(For more news as it happens, stay tuned to your local FReeper station.........)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 321-337 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson