An activist's view of Silveira v. Lockyer

Hass' Guide to Small Arms Ammunition ^ | 10/2/2003 | Mike Haas

[Mike Haas]

Haas' Guide to Small Arms Ammunition

An activist's views on Silveira v. Lockyer

Occasionally I see internet email from the people promoting the Silveira v. Lockyer case - they ask for money to help move this case forward, reminding me that they are "down to the bottom of the barrel". Accordingly, I've tried to formulate an opinion of my own on this effort vying for USSC cert.

The result? I could not. I quickly realized that I am not qualified to determine the merits (or lack thereof) of this case which may affect the firearms rights of all gun-owners now and in the future. The issues that arise in such venues are complex by any standard, and the interpretation of relevant facts and their presentation to the USSC are crucial to the outcome. It would take great experience with the USSC and a firm foundation in the history of our beloved amendment to accurately determine the answer I searched for.

Naturally, I turned to those experts who have proven themselves over many years of dealing with gun-rights issues successfully, Individuals I have come to trust without question, names such as Stephen Halbrook, Dave Kopel and Chuck Michel. I consider these professionals beyond reproach in their dedication to our freedoms and greatly respect their analytical skills in such matters. Well, in such highly-respected scholars I found sufficient information on which to form my own lay-person opinion.

I learned that virtually every credible Second Amendment expert has fundamentally (and some very vocally) expressed that Silveira is very bad case law on which to base the future of the Second Amendment. The case has been promoted by RKBA neophytes and if granted cert, stands likely to irrecoverably damage the Second Amendment. I constantly remind myself that there is no appeal to a USSC decision.

Some links for your edification...

• Dave Kopel: The Silveira Threat
• NRA/CRPA Attorney Chuck Michel on Silveira
• CRPA Supports Appropriate 2nd Amendment Cases. Silveira Is Not The Right Case
• CRPA Files Amicus Brief In Ninth Circuit Second Amendment Case

I find particularly enlightening these excerpts from the most recent article, by Kopel (dated 9/23/2003)...

"...Silveira v. Lockyer is a Second Amendment lawsuit which has, according to Gun Week (Sept. 1) "gained almost cult status among gun owners." This status is mostly to the benefit of the gun-prohibition lobby, for Silveira has already seriously harmed Second Amendment rights, and the damage may not be over..."

"...The complaint blew its credibility on at the very beginning, opening with a fabricated quote attributed to Hitler. The quote has been circulating among gun activists for years, but scholars who have examined German newspapers... have found no evidence that the quote was actually uttered... the quote is phony..."

"...The Silveira complaint further damaged its credibility by shoe-horning an overwhelming number of claims into the suit, including a challenge to the California system for discretionary issuance of concealed-weapons permits. Courts often consider such scattershot complaints as the mark of cranks, and not as persuasive legal argument...."

"...the attorney who filed [Silveira v. Lockyer] said he felt it was necessary because the NRA was not doing anything to fight the "assault-weapon" law. Aside from the fact that NRA and California Rifle and Pistol Association unsuccessfully sued against the ban in 1990-92 (Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club v. Van de Kamp), a new NRA-CRPA-supported lawsuit was being prepared when the Silveira lawsuit was filed... It has survived two attempts by the DOJ to have it dismissed, and is now moving toward trial..."

"...According to Chuck Michel, a former Los Angeles district attorney who now specializes in firearms law, when he and other attorneys experienced in Second Amendment litigation learned of the Silveira case, they contacted Gorski. They informed Gorski of the pending Fresno district-attorney lawsuit to challenge the "assault-weapon" ban. They also advised Gorski about the notorious institutional hostility to the Second Amendment in the overwhelmingly leftist Ninth Circuit. They explained that there was a nationwide strategy by the pro-self-defense community to advance the Second Amendment and fight repressive gun-control laws. The expert attorneys urged Gorski to dismiss the Silveira case, but he refused..."

"...Many of the Silveira plaintiffs - mostly rugby buddies of Gorski - may not have had a legally sufficient interest in the issues presented to have legitimate "standing" to bring the case in the first place... the antigun trial judge took the marvelous opportunity created by the Silveira case to render an opinion that would harm the Second Amendment..."

"...portions [of Silveira v. Lockyer] are fanciful, at best, such as Gorski's argument that because the California constitution explicitly recognizes the United States Constitution as "the supreme law of the land," California "thereby incorporated the Second Amendment into its own Constitution."..."

"...Factual arguments about the non-dangerousness of "assault weapons" often appeared without supporting citation - even though there are many books and law-journal articles which could have cited..."

"...Not all of the Silveira appellate brief was written in standard English: ...whether the state of California can ban all firearms, and confiscate those in possession of its citizens, such as what just happened in Australia. Understandably, there is no citation for "such as what just happened in Australia," because Australia has banned and confiscated only some firearms, not all firearms. The phrasing might be acceptable in a letter to the editor of a gun magazine, but is not appropriate in a federal appellate court brief which expects to be taken seriously...."

"...The California Department of Justice filed its opposition brief. Then, Gorski did not file a reply brief in response to the DOJ's brief, although he was entitled to do so...."

"...the Silveira attorney led with his (and our) chins. He brought a foolish case, and persisted even when it was clear that he had no reasonable chance of success on appeal. His failure to file a reply brief was terrible. The fruit of his labor is a horrendous Ninth Circuit opinion which will harm the Second Amendment for years to come..."

"...Silveira and cases like it are worse than playing Russian Roulette with our freedoms, and the freedoms of our heirs. With Russian roulette, the odds of not getting harmed are 5/6. The odds are much worse in Silveira, with the only question being the type of self-inflicted damage...."

"...In the coming decades and centuries, our children and our children's children will not care if the Supreme Court decisively vindicates the Second Amendment in 2004 or 2008. They will care only if we win, whenever it happens. But if the wrong case results in a devastating Supreme Court decision, future generations will live with the consequences, and they will justifiably blame the men who ended up helping the gun-prohibition lobby..."

In the face of such overwhelming condemnation by well-respected Second Amendment scholars, I have concluded that the Second Amendmnt is best served if Silveira v. Lockyer does not appear before the Supreme Court of the United States, and that such matters are best left to those empowered and trusted by the fireams community at large.

Mike Haas
NRA Benefactor Member
CA NRA volunteer
Author, Haas' Guide to Small Arms Ammunition
http://AmmoGuide.com/

---

Mike Haas is an NRA Benefactor Member and Senior Software Engineer by trade. Volunteer efforts include: creator and webmaster of NRAWinningTeam.com; webmaster, NRAMembersCouncils.com; past member of the NRA Nominating Committee; NRA-ILA Election Volunteer Coordinator (EVC) for CA 7th Congressional district; president of the NRA Members' Council of West Contra Costa County; administrator of the California NRA Members' Councils email list.

[Mike Haas]

Sorry, corrected links are...

• Dave Kopel: The Silveira Threat
• NRA/CRPA Attorney Chuck Michel on Silveira
• CRPA Supports Appropriate 2nd Amendment Cases. Silveira Is Not The Right Case
• CRPA Files Amicus Brief In Ninth Circuit Second Amendment Case

Mike Haas

[Support Free Republic]

Aww man! Enough of the fundraiser posts!!!

Only YOU can make fundraiser posts go away. Please contribute!

[45Auto]

NRA did file an amicus brief in defense of Silveira.

[Frohickey]

Okay, granted, these experts do make strong and convincing articles about the role of the 2nd Amendment in this republic and the historical interpretation of same, but...

The NRA has been around for quite a long time already...
These experts have been around for some time as well...
But what do we have to show for that effort? I would say that we are losing the war, though we might win some battles. Right now, status quo is the best for the NRA. It allows them to keep their member contributions up, but where are the results? Where are the rollbacks of the bad gun control laws? Where are the rollbacks of the GCA68, NFA34, AWB94, etc?

What is feared here is that Gorski might succeed.

Every pro-2A activist will need to make their own determination if Gorski/Silveira vs Lockyer is good or not. In my book, lack of action all these past years brings us to where we are at now, where the rights I enjoy now is definitely less than the rights my ancestors enjoyed previously.

[45Auto]

Here's another opinion just for balance.

Silveira v. Lockyer

May 28, 2003

KeepAndBearArms.com — Some people argue that the U.S. Supreme Court will refuse to hear the Second Amendment case Silveira v. Lockyer, which will be appealed [was appealed, July 3, 2003] from the Ninth Circuit Court in California. Here are ten (and more) reasons why we think they are wrong, and why you should support the Silveira case as a rare and important opportunity for success.

(1) The Supreme Court has not heard a case on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms since United States v. Miller in 1939 — 64 years ago. The Court hears First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment cases virtually every year. And if only four of the nine Justices decide to hear the case, it will be heard.

(2) There are conflicts between federal circuit courts that need to be resolved by the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit Court's ruling in Silveira is directly contrary to the Second Amendment findings in the Emerson case from the Fifth Circuit Court. Furthermore, six Ninth Circuit Court judges dissented in Silveira because they thought Judge Reinhardt's ruling on the Second Amendment was wrong. Six dissents are rare and a huge factor in the U.S. Supreme Court deciding to grant certiorari (to hear the case). Those six votes in Silveira may be the most important votes for the individual right to keep and bear arms in the entire past one hundred years.

(3) The conflict of circuits is long-standing, another factor in granting certiorari. Emerson conflicts with the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh federal US Courts of Appeal. The Supreme Court may have refused to hear Emerson because the certiorari petition (the formal request that the Supreme Court hear a case) focused primarily on the commerce clause, instead of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

(4) The certiorari petition in Silveira is thorough and complete but for minor edits and additions. Hundreds and hundreds of careful hours of research and writing have gone into this important project. It cleanly presents the clear Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights of individuals to keep and bear arms for family, home, business, and community defense. It is a civil case, not a messy criminal defense. And it does not have wasteful side arguments that clutter other firearms litigation. [NOTE: The certiorari petition was completed and submitted to Supreme Court since this was first published. Read it.]

(5) Extensive modern scholarship suggests that Emerson and the dissenting views in Silveira have the better argument regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment. The Silveira certiorari petition references over twenty of the relevant books and articles, and develops the points succinctly.

(6) 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.

(7) Silveira presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to write on a clean slate, to overrule Miller, and to overrule Presser v. Illinois, which refused to apply the Second Amendment to the States. There is an overwhelmingly powerful argument on our side: the Fourteenth Amendment, and the fact that most of the "individual right" amendments have been ruled as applying to the states. For example, Massachusetts cannot deny its citizens freedom of the press, because they are protected by the First Amendment; nor Wyoming force its citizens to testify against themselves, because they are protected by the Fifth Amendment.

(8) The lower court decision in Silveira was written by the most-reversed federal circuit judge, Stephen Reinhardt, a notorious liberal activist judge. The dissents, however, were written by several very well respected circuit judges: Kozinski, Kleinfeld, and Gould, and joined in by an unusually large group of additional dissenters. They send a strong message to the Supreme Court to hear Silveira and reverse Reinhardt.

(9) Specific detailed issues about different kinds of firearms, i.e., what the anti-gun crowd mendaciously calls "assault weapons", are reserved for trial by the Silveira certiorari petition, since there has been no trial to determine facts as yet. The Supreme Court is not a trial court and will only hear the fundamental constitutional questions raised by the Silveira certiorari petition — that is, does the Second Amendment, like so many other Amendments, apply to the states? And is it an individual right, like all the other rights spoken about in the Bill of Rights? These questions have become extremely important in both legislation and in politics in the last few years. The Court will have to deal with them -- and we believe they will deal with them now, rather than later.

(10) The certiorari petition, brief and other materials in Silveira make a deliberate, carefully crafted effort to persuade all nine Supreme Court Justices of the need to recognize a strong individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Arguments are being developed that should resonate with the various viewpoints held by the different Justices. The individuals working on Silveira have decades of experience in Bill of Rights litigation before the Supreme Court with a great deal of success in other very difficult areas of law. Earlier Second Amendment activists largely slept through the civil rights movement and made no progress at all for individual Second Amendment rights until Emerson. Every effort is being made to present the Silveira arguments in ways that maximize prospects for success.

One final note: A real danger for us is that some messy criminal firearms case might get to the Supreme Court first — with Second Amendment issues poorly presented in a horrendous context. In contrast, Silveira is a clear, straightforward case that involves upstanding citizens. It has been very well and thoroughly thought out.

[45Auto]

Here is the gist of Kopel's argument:

"The five most-likely votes for Second Amendment rights on the Supreme Court are all supporters of state's rights — making a challenge to a state statute an especially bad context for a Second Amendment case. Moreover, the Court has never decisively ruled that the Second Amendment is a limit on state power (as opposed to being a limit on federal power), and it seems unwise to litigate in a situation requiring two major favorable decisions by the Court (on the meaning Second Amendment itself, plus its incorporation against the states)."

"Moreover, "assault weapons" are an awful test case to bring to the Court. Gun experts understand that so-called "assault weapons" are merely ordinary guns with politically incorrect cosmetics. The justices, however, live in the Beltway, where the media have provided them with an almost unrelieved stream of vitriol about "assault weapons" and the kind of people who own them. It would surely be better for a major Second Amendment test case to involve more "ordinary" guns, which would not require the plaintiffs to spend an extensive section of their finite briefing pages in explaining the technicalities of the particular guns."

"Given the media climate over "assault weapons," it is inconceivable that the Court would rule in Silveira's favor. At best, the Court's opinion might uphold the Second Amendment as an individual right, while affirming California's ban 9-0 or 8-1. This kind of loss would seriously harm efforts to prevent renewal of the federal "assault-weapons" ban, which is scheduled to sunset in September 2004. Such a loss would also make it easier for gun-prohibition lobbies to pass "assault-weapons" bans in various state legislatures.

"At worst, a 5-4 or 6-3 Supreme Court majority might declare the Second Amendment to protect no individual right at all. The odds of such a ruling are increased if the case arises in a context likely to offend Justice O'Connor's affection for state's rights, and involving guns which she is likely to know almost nothing about — since she grew up on an Arizona ranch long before "assault weapons" became popular among competitive target shooters.

" Gorski claims that if cert. is granted, he will in win the case invalidating the "assault-weapon" ban 7-2 or 9-0. He told me that the reason he is so confident is that he is right on the merits, and will therefore win, "unless you believe that the Supreme Court cannot be trusted."

" Well, he is right on the merits, and of course the Supreme Court can't be trusted. The number of cases in which the current Court has upheld bogus constitutional theories, or has been willingly duped by lawyers for politically correct causes is rather large. Just this summer, a majority of the Court ignored the explicit and unmistakable ban on racial discrimination in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in order to permit state-based racial discrimination. If the Court can ignore a statute which is exactly on point and has no ambiguity, the Court can surely find reasons to evade the original intent of the Second Amendment, and also to ignore the Court's precedents on the Second Amendment."

" The fundamental error of prohibition is trying to alleviate the problem of gun misuse but ignoring the ancient medical admonition which should be the first rule of public policy as well as medicine: in trying to cure problems first make sure that you do no harm. The Silveira decision is the disastrous result of ignoring that admonition. The Ninth Circuit loss was as predictable as it was avoidable." Kopel's argument does have some merit. However, there is absolutely NO sure thing in any of these cases, as we have seen. Kopel himself has shown that the courts are suffering from a distinct lack of honesty and rule on the basis of whim instead of the Constitution. So, do we wait until there is a better makeup of justices at the US SC? How long do we wait? 20 years? 30? By that time there may be a further increase in bad case law relative to the RKBA built up to the point where the right decision will never be made. The AW ban notwithstanding, if the US SC rules with Reinhardt that the 2nd is not about an individual right, they have nullified the entire Bill of Rights since they will have redefined "the people".

Kopel is probably right about one thing: the SC decision (if they grant cert) will unfortunately, uphold California's ban but still find that the 2nd is an individual right, subject to certain "narrowly tailored restrictions". Such a ruling would keep open the door for further gun laws, but the emphasis would be shifted to puttng the burden of proof on the state.

[Congressman Billybob]

Mike,

I approach this case from the standpoint of odds of Supreme Court review. As a practitioner in that Court and a member of its Bar for more than a quarter century, I can guarantee that the general odds of the Court taking any particular case for review is about 1 in 200, or 0.5%. That's the ratio, year in and year out, of the cases taken on certiorari and those offered but declined by the Court.

The Silveira case has already surmounted these odds. The way the Court operates is that the Petitioners file their requests for Certiorari. The Respondents file nothing, because the Court normally rejects such requests without any answer. ONLY WHEN THE COURT CONSIDERS A CASE A LIKELY ONE TO ACCEPT, does the Court require the Respondents to file an answer. The Court has done exactly that in the Silveira case.

Now the odds have shifted. It is about a 90% chance now that the Court will accept the case. And it would not accept the case unless it is prepared to reexamine the question of whether the Second Amendment offers a "personal right" or a "collective" one.

You question whether the basic case is a "scattershot" one, raising a welter of issues and not clean and ready for review. The Court solves those problems on its own. In every case that the Court accepts, it lays out the specific questions it is going to review. So do not worry about the original case that is all over the lot. The Court will narrow it down.

If the Court takes the case, it will state the specific issues on which it has granted certiorari. Then all of us, lawyers and laymen alike, will know the precise questions the Court is going to consider. All briefs and arguments must be addressed to those questions. And all issues not included in that Order will be off the table and out of the case.

I hope that is helpful.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Two Degrees of Separation and a Double Sawbuck," discussion thread on FR. IF YOU WANT A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.

[Sender]

I read the link from Chuck Michel. That's exactly what I worry about...that maybe an 'assault weapon' case is the wrong thing to present because it could result in a 'reasonableness test' something like the bogus 'sporting purpose' test the antis came up with years ago.

It will inevitably result in the 2A being declared an individual right. The rub comes when the fine print says 'reasonable restrictions' like Ashcroft himself once said. You give localities and states the right to invoke 'reasonable restrictions' on an individual right and then we will get to own only what antigun politicians consider 'reasonable'. Anyone care to guess what Schumer, Kennedy or Feinstein consider to be 'reasonable'?

[KeepAndBearArms]

Congressman Billybob:

"You question whether the basic case is a "scattershot" one, raising a welter of issues and not clean and ready for review."

That is indeed a funny thing for an NRA guy to question. NRA's Seegars case brings multiple non-RKBA issues to the table. (See: New NRA-Halbrook Gun Lawsuit in DC Counterproductive, Disruptive.) They even tried to force the clean CATO-supported Parker case under their multi-issue banner -- and failed miserably. (See CATO Attorneys to NRA: Butt Out! for facts and amusing/annoying details.) NRA loves giving the courts outs so they don't rule on 2A cleanly. Any among them or infected by their flawed reasoning saying Silveira is scattershot is truly smitten with hypocrisy.

BTW, Congressman B, your posts on this subject thus far have been read by the people doing the work on Silveira -- not only from this thread, either -- and you've been credited by said team for being smart, intelligent and insightful, FYI. Wanna help in some way? I'm sure there's something you could do to assist, while these other "allies" busy themselves attacking a case that's about to be granted certiorari.

All in all, we are grateful that Mr. Haas singled out the very biggest holes in Mr. Kopel's sophomoric hit piece. Those very items will be addressed in a way that shows why Mr. Kopel should stick to research and leave litigation to the professionals now working on Silveira.

As to Mr. Haas, the truest statement he makes in this silly rant is this one:  "I am not qualified to determine the merits (or lack thereof) of this case".

The honesty is indeed appreciated -- but not necessary as he merely states the obvious.

[KeepAndBearArms]

Mike Hass:

"Naturally, I turned to those experts who have proven themselves over many years of dealing with gun-rights issues successfully, Individuals I have come to trust without question, names such as Stephen Halbrook, Dave Kopel and Chuck Michel."

Please point us to one successful Second Amendment court ruling any of these lads has produced.

Before you try to say Printz is a "gun rights" ruling, better consult someone smarter than yourself. The Second Amendment was not briefed or argued. Thomas' concurrence touched on 2A in dicta only; his 2A dicta is not a holding or a ruling or a finding; it's a comment that had no bearing on what came down from the case.

Trusting people "without question" is for automatons. Trusting people "without question" is for sheep and followers.

[Congressman Billybob]

I hope my contribution to the discussion was useful. However, I am NOT "an NRA guy" as you suggest.

In every Supreme Court discussion on FR on any case, if I represent a client I say so, and say who that is. Concerning most cases, I do not have any client in the matter, and what I say is based solely on my knowledge of the issues and the applicable procedures of the SC.

I do not represent the NRA. I have never represented the NRA. The only client I have represented in the Supreme Court (or any other court) in the last five years is the American Civil Rights Union, a legal charity whose Board includes Robert Bork, Edwin Meese, and Walter Williams. That group has no involvement in gun control cases on either side, and I do NOT speak for them on this thread.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Two Degrees of Separation and a Double Sawbuck," discussion thread on FR. IF YOU WANT A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.

[KeepAndBearArms]

Mike Hass:

"The case has been promoted by RKBA neophytes and if granted cert, stands likely to irrecoverably damage the Second Amendment."

Before 1791, everyone was an "RKBA neophyte" as the Second Amendment had not yet been ratified.

If NRA's fellas are such experts, why haven't they gotten one (1) Second Amendment ruling in the Supreme Court? They've had since the 1870's to do it. Perhaps it takes "neophytes" to do their jobs for them -- sure seems that way, to people who don't worship at the altar of the so-called "Winning Team".

The funniest thing about NRA-worshippers attacking Silveira is that they all fell in lockstep to support Emerson -- and Emerson started with a doctor alleged to have pointed a handgun at his wife and little girl. Dr. Emerson was acquitted on those charges, but the media never forgot, and the case was still about arguing for the RKBA of someone alleged to have done such things, whereas Silveira is fighting for the rights of upstanding citizens who've been charged with no crime. So these NRA types attacking Silveira are clearly only doing it because their Master tells them to. And good little followers always "trust without question".  :-)

People who actually study the Silveira certiorari petition and put the truth and freedom before the worshipping "trust without question" are supporting this case.

Silveira Second Amendment Case Needs Immediate Financial Support, and Here's Why

Detailed Accounting/Status of Fundraising for Silveira v. Lockyer Second Amendment Lawsuit

NRA lying about Silveira case AGAIN
--August 26, 2003

Unintended Consequences Author John Ross Endorses Silveira v. Lockyer Lawsuit.
--July 23, 2003

Ten Reasons Why the Supreme Court Should Hear Silveira v. Lockyer and Decide There Is an Individual Right to Keep And Bear Arms Under The Second And Fourteenth Amendments
--May 28, 2003
This speaks for itself.

200 Patriots
--May 8, 2003
"We can continue trying the same old stale approaches that have led us down the path of continuous erosion of our rights — or we can strike out and try something bold — something worthy of the sacrifices of those who went before us."

CRPA/NRA Lawyer Undermining ALL Our Rights
Disturbing Events Surround 2nd Amendment Case
--January 24, 2002

[KeepAndBearArms]

Congressman Billybob:

"I am NOT "an NRA guy" as you suggest."

Didn't mean to suggest you were, sir. My apologies for not being more clear with you.

And I sure do understand why you'd want to make that very clear. :-)

I was referring to the robot who admits he "trusts without question" whatever is issued from guys with no successful Second Amendment litigation under their belts.

I trust nobody or nothing until I question thoroughly and make sound determinations based on facts, reason, logic and Principles. Too bad more people don't question but prefer to blindly follow. I'd say that's the source of lots of problems in this nation.

NOTE:  This message is not intended to offend any avowed blind followers among us. It's just my opinion of sheep, that's all.

[KeepAndBearArms]

Congressman Billybob:

"The only client I have represented in the Supreme Court (or any other court) in the last five years is the American Civil Rights Union, a legal charity whose Board includes Robert Bork, Edwin Meese, and Walter Williams."

I believe their Executive Director contacted us with interest in filing an amicus brief in the Silveira case, but I believe we dropped the ball. (I assume full responsibility for that ball dropping. We were very busy, as you might imagine.) Would've been nice to have seven (7) amici instead of the six (6) that we have.

BTW, you're a Supreme Court litigant -- perhaps you can answer a question. Have you ever seen so many amici filed in support of cert? If so, could you direct us to such a case, please -- we can't find any with that many before cert was granted, and we're sure there must be one somewhere. It'd be pretty amazing if we set a new record. Send to Director@KeepAndBearArms.com.

And if a Mr. Ferrara is the exec. dir. of your client, please let them know that they are still certainly welcome to file a brief once cert. is granted. The more the merrier; the anti-rights yahoos are sure to file plenty. Hey, maybe Kopel, Michel and Halbrook should all pool their talents to oppose cert! That's a novel idea.

Angel Shamaya
KeepAndBearArms.com
(928) 522-8833

[KeepAndBearArms]

Cat got your tongue, Mike?

[coloradan]

I'm surprised to hear that the ACLU wanted to file an amicus brief. Their official position is that the Second Amendment is only a collective right (i.e. power) of the states, and does not pertain to individuals.

[KeepAndBearArms]

Different group entirely. You are correct; the ACLU is a band of dishonest traitors on the Second Amendment -- a fact that has been painstakingly proven by many people and is easily validated on their own website.

[coloradan]

Oh, ACRU. Nevermind.

[El Gato]

Where are the rollbacks of the GCA68, NFA34, AWB94, etc?

Well the GOPA of the 1980s did roll back some of the provisions of the GCA68, and (temporarily) inhibited some of the worst of the BATF's abuses. It also protected those transporting firearms through arms hostile jurisdicitions. This was at the expense of prohibition of new production machineguns even for folks willing to pay the $200 tax and go through all the hoops, assumning that their local laws and local CLEO would allow it.