NRA lying to 80 million gun owners about Silveira Gun Rights Case

"In another fifty years will our kids and grand kids have the patriotic fervor to stand for the rights and freedoms what is espoused in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Or are you and I going fight the fight today, rather than leave it to our kids to fight our battles?"

Well, that's a damn good point...one of many in your post. I teach history as many of you know. I see it every day, the liberalism that has infected the curriculum and faculties of our public schools has done it's nefarious job well. These kids not only don't understand the living Constitution or care about it as a source of liberty they dang sure won't shed blood or even votes to preserve it! Even my generation (I'm 46) is on the ragged edge of the ability or wherewithal to do this.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thank you for your comment. Your work in the college classroom is appreciated.

Semper Fi

So NRA is lying about raising money to fight for Silveira while they actually oppose it in court and will thereby keep the donations raised from reaching those (like RKBA) who actually are fighting the case.

Nice work by the NRA. This is sinking to a new low. I'm going to make my dad drop his membership. They've really gone too far. I'll stick with GOA personally and consider RKBA as well.

Any news on whether GOA is helping RKBA on this one?

Any news on whether GOA is helping RKBA on this one?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I don't know ask Angel

Director@keepandbeararms.com

The NRA/CRPA are doing a great job with the resources they have. Despite it being fashionable on some websites to sit in the bleachers and bash them they dont react with emotion, they act out of profesional insight.

RE: silviera v Lockyer please read
http://www.crpa.org/pressrls051303.html

"Any news on whether GOA is helping RKBA on this one?"

No. GOA, SAF/CCRKBA declined to provided any financial support for the Silveira case. Larry Pratt and Alan Gottlieb each told me their respective organizations would file briefs -- when the Court agrees to hear the case.

And it's not "helping RKBA" that is required. KeepAndBearArms.com is the fundraising entity for this case.

The NRA/CRPA are doing a great job with the resources they have.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I read the link to CRPA. The California Rifle and Pistol Association.

The position outlined sounds identical to the NRA position. Which do you suppose came first??

Regarding the right case. The Miller case has misused, abused, and been incorrectly interpreted for sixty plus years. When will CRPA say there is a right case?? Does CRPA say the Miller case is wrongly interpreted? And if it is when will CRPA bring forth a case to correct?

See the issue. We will let our children fight our fights if we follow the CRPA solution.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Here is a response to another poster at post 163. Is this a valid argument? Chicagofarmer

but that rather the COURT itself is too weak in the conservative sense. The "moderate" votes could very well swing against us and a BAD precedent established now will be much worse than what currently stands in the distant past.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This concern mentioned many surfaced many times over the past several years. Wait until the court is more conservative before bringing a 2A case in front of the USSC.

As I read the your comment, that possibility exists that the USSCC does take this case they will give use the good stuff and then hang a hook on the end of it.

Govt has only one roll in life. Stay in power. To take away all the rights at one time will never happen. Chip a little here, a little there, some more here, etc. Today we have 20000 gun laws chipping away at a RIGHT; this is a RIGHT not a privilege like a driver license.

So we take your position and argument and not present this Silveira Case to the USSC. In another fifty years will our kids and grand kids have the patriotic fervor to stand for the rights and freedoms what is espoused in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Or are you and I going fight the fight today, rather than leave it to our kids to fight our battles?

I just finished reading the story of Mike Spann. As you know Mike had a family, and Mike had a mission. Perhaps it is best said in his words.

The Central Intelligence Agency officer killed in the Taliban prison riot said his son is "a hero to me." Johnny Spann Sr. said his son Mike joined the CIA after service in the Marines because "he felt he would be able to make the world a better place to live in." "We recall Mike saying, 'Someone has got to do the things that no one else wants to do,' and that's what he was doing in Afghanistan."

Angel Shamuya and his team are making their stand today. Perhaps this is the time to move the ball forward. Perhaps it is the wrong time to bring this Silveira Case as expressed in your concern. If the Silveira Plaintiffs win, we all win. If the Silverira Plaintiffs lose or we receive a partial victory, we win and we lose.

But there is a difference in the two postions; if it is a bad USSC ruling then start the fight today, not fifty years from today. Mike Spann if he were here would be with us because 'Someone has got to do the things that no one else wants to do,' The Miller case is a mess and improperly interpreted for sixty years. Sounds like a Trojan horse to me.

If the USSC fails to take the case you position is expunged, however, if the USSC takes this case, all groups need to rally behind the cause or spend the next sixty years complaining they should have done more to fix the Miller case.

In the world of government as time goes by, the "ism" takes over. Over the course of history "liberalism, and socialism", creep in slowly drowning out individual freedoms. Today’s social entitlement programs funded by the United States Treasury are making that new society (ism) where everyone is an equal subject.

During the battle of the case, shoulder-to-shoulder, is the order of the day, and sit aside the family squabbles. 'Someone has got to do the things that no one else wants to do,'

My point for airing out the dirty laundry on this form is to flush out solutions to this chicken fight and bring unity to the 60 million firearms owners. Second, to bring out honor and integrity in fund raising for Silveira Plaintiffs. Telemarketing scams if true should remain outside the respective camps on such an important issue.

163 posted on 09/02/2003 6:20 PM CDT by CHICAGOFARMER (Citizen Carry)

ajtannehill quipped:

"The NRA/CRPA are doing a great job with the resources they have. Despite it being fashionable on some websites to sit in the bleachers and bash them they dont react with emotion, they act out of profesional insight.

"RE: silviera v Lockyer please read
http://www.crpa.org/pressrls051303.html "

Looks more like they act out of schizophrenia than anything. Michel said the case was wrong, bad and dangerous and threatened to file a brief in opposition -- then NRA filed an amicus brief in support of the case. BTW, that "press release" was linked from the original message that started this thread. Maybe you might even consider reading it.

Michel was just sore that he had recently been exposed for being an incompetent bumbler in relation to the case. To him, shooting yourself in the foot is a logical response to being exposed for shooting yourself in the foot. Br'er Rabbit comes to mind.

Sitting "in the bleachers", KeepAndBearArms.com has managed to inspire freedom-loving people to help get the case further than any NRA 2A case has gone. (Since NRA doesn't file pure 2A lawsuits and never has, that's not really saying much.) Not bad for a group of citizens who "react with emotion".

ajtannehill:

"The NRA/CRPA are doing a great job with the resources they have."

NRA's "resources they have" are in the hundreds of millions annually. Here are some questions, in response to your opinion:

1) Why hasn't the NRA ever taken a pure Second Amendment case up to and through the Supreme Court?
2) Why hasn't NRA ever FILED a pure Second Amendment case or even underwritten one? ("Pure Second Amendment case" = one that can only be decided by answering clear and unequivocal questions relative to the nature, intent and purpose of the Second Amendment.)
3) Why does NRA's "Chief Attorney" oppose a pure Second Amendment case while NRA hires a law firm to file an amicus brief in support of the same lawsuit?
4) Why does NRA management call for zero tolerance enforcement of all gun laws when most of the gun laws need to be repealed as direct violations of the Second Amendment? If you say this is a strategy to prevent new laws from passing, what do you have to say about the fact that their demand for enforcement has led to hundreds of millions of dollars being devoted to fulfilling their demand for enforcement, resulting in the imprisonment of many, many people whose "crimes" consisted of exercising their Second Amendment rights?

I look forward to the answers to these questions in hopes that someone's answers actually lead me to conclude that ajtannehill's supposition is correct and true. Until then, I submit that ajtannehill's supposition is false and absurd and nothing more than apologism for the longstanding misguided leadership among NRA's upper eschelon -- to the detriment of NRA's members, who are, on the whole, among the finest people our great nation has to offer.

Since 1939 the Miller case has been cited to support negative decisions in every federal circuit but the Fifth in Emerson. The Silveira cert petition exposes the poor reasoning of Miller thoroughly and asks that those parts of it that are historically and constitutionally wrong be overruled.

Perhaps more significantly, the Miller case is frequently mis-cited. What Miller actually said was that a firearm's potential usefulness in the context of a well-regulated militia would imply Second-Amendment protection to its ownership, but that such usefulness must be proven in a court of law. Had the government actually pursued an indictment against the surviving defendant in that case (Layton), he would have almost certainly been able to show that his firearm qualified and thus been acquitted.

To be sure, it's questionable whether the government should be allowed to indict people in cases where the facts provide a 100% clear and obvious defense; on the other hand, there is really nothing preventing a malicious DA from doing that now in just about any case. DA's who do so too much, though, are apt to lose their jobs.

IMHO, rather than seeking to overturn Miller, I think it would be better to instead seek to re-affirm it, since on the whole the decision itself is far more pro-gun than anti-gun. What need to be overturned are the frequent mis-citations; since the Supreme Court generally does not like to be mis-cited, pointing out the discrepancies between what Miller said and what cases citing it have claimed might pique their interest.

The third case suggests that Congress may infringe the right to keep and bear arms if to regulate a significant threat to public health and safety. This despite the Second Amendment. One might reasonably ask how our Founders might have arranged for Congress not to infringe our right to keep and bear arms if not with the Second Amendment.

The founders don't mean jack-sh!t to many of these judges, and if they can come up with a legalistic-sounding excuse to uphold a ban on something they don't like under the rubric of the "police power" or "public health and safety," they probably will, as that court amply demonstrated.

The idea that Don has, and that I tend to agree with, is that if we had brought a non-politicized, non-controversial aspect of the Second Amendment -- such as gun shows or simple possession of a .38 special in DC -- to the Supreme Court, they would have far less of an excuse to put forth such a twisted, craven ruling as that other court did when it came to "assault weapons," with their Stockton baggage and 26 pages of law passed by a majority of the California legislature.

But that's all bygones now anyway, Silveira is playing for all the marbles in the Ninth Circuit now. Let's all hope I'm wrong, and let's hope that the Supreme Court of the United States can rise above politics.

Let's also not forget that the essence of what the high court said in Miller is that a sawed off shotgun isn't a weapon suitable for the inclusion into a militia.

Not quite. What they said was that it was "not within judicial notice" that such weapons were especially suitable for militia service, in other words, no one had told them that they were, though they might well have been, useful. Carrying the Miller decision to its logical end, only those weapons which are "suitable for militia service" are protected under the Second Amendment for private, civilian ownership ... M16s, M60s, suppressed 9 mm subsonic SMGs, "sniper rifles," .45 hi-cap handguns, etc. Instead, the gun grabbers turn it around and claim that Miller shows that specific types of guns, especially those useful for military service, may be banned. Typical liars.

mvpel said: "The idea that Don has, and that I tend to agree with, is that if we had brought a non-politicized, non-controversial aspect of the Second Amendment -- such as gun shows or simple possession of a .38 special in DC ..."

Addressing the issue of whether the NRA has been conscientiously seeking an appropriate case to take to the Supreme Court, it appears that the DC gun ban has existed since 1976. That's 27 years. Surely the NRA could have identified a case in that much time if such a case was so clearly superior to what we have now.