| Aww man! Enough of the fundraiser posts!!! |
|---|
 |
| Only YOU can make fundraiser posts go away. Please contribute! |
|
Sorry, corrected links are... Mike Haas |
| Aww man! Enough of the fundraiser posts!!! |
|---|
|
| Only YOU can make fundraiser posts go away. Please contribute! |
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.
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.
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
"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.
"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, 2003Unintended Consequences Author John Ross Endorses Silveira v. Lockyer Lawsuit.
--July 23, 2003Ten 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
"have come to trust without question, names such as Stephen Halbrook"
Meanwhile, NRA attorney Stephen Halbrook says, to the judge, last week, oral arguments, in a so-called "Second Amendment" lawsuit:
THE COURT: THE GOVERNMENT CAN PUT RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.MR. HALBROOK: YOUR HONOR, WE ARE HERE WANTING TO REGISTER HANDGUNS. WE ARE NOT HERE WANTING UNRESTRICTED ACCESS. WE'RE NOT HERE ASKING TO CARRY THEM, OTHER THAN IN THE HOME.
THE COURT: YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN IMPOSE REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS?
MR. HALBROOK: YES, YOUR HONOR. YES, YOUR HONOR.
[See: http://KeepAndBearArms.com/Silveira/Halbrook.asp for the full transcript, with annotations.]
Thus, we see what happens when you "trust without question". Do be sure and read that full annotated transcript. It was annotated by the attorney doing the legal research and writing on the Silveira case. This will be a nice way to compare the two minds, how they work, how prepared they are, etc. Let us know what you learn, Mike. I also welcome your thoughts on my own analysis of your hero. Surely you can think of something to say, right?
Ooops. Gosh, Mike. Looks like your wonder boy is, well, CLUELESS.
Your silence sure is loud these days. Can't blame you.
The reply to Mr. Kates is already done, as well. Shame you went and helped him make himself look bad, too. Got any more friends whose reputations you'd like to screw up?