Source: http://keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/scotus.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 09:06:09+00:00

Document:
is Moving Toward the U.S. Supreme Court.
Your Immediate Support is Crucial to the Success of this Case!
Silveira v. Lockyer is a current lawsuit that challenges the California semi-auto rifle ban on the basis of Second Amendment protection of our individual right to keep and bear arms. The plaintiffs in the case are represented by California attorney Gary Gorski.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled (Hickman) that Americans have no individual right to own and carry guns. A three-judge panel upheld that ruling in Silveira v. Lockyer. Gorski has petitioned for a hearing by the full court. Barring a self-reversal by the full Ninth Circuit, this case WILL be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs and Mr. Gorski are determined to move this case to the Supreme Court. More importantly, Mr. Gorski�s in-progress petition asking the Supreme Court to hear Silveira v. Lockyer is being expertly constructed. Because of this, Silveira v. Lockyer has a good chance of being heard by the Supreme Court. With your help, Mr. Gorski will have access to all the essential information, expert advice, and first-class preparation necessary for this Supreme Court case. Citizens Of America and KeepAndBearArms.com have spent a great deal of time investigating every nuance of this situation � and have committed to supporting this case financially.
Supreme Court agreement to hear Silveira v. Lockyer means it is imperative that we win, and the time to prepare is right now. We need your immediate help to make certain that the tremendous amount of advance preparation for this case is done thoroughly and on time.
We must settle the �question� of the Second Amendment sooner rather than later. We must restore the free exercise of our right to own and use guns in our lifetime. We will not accept another 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 years of citizens being harassed, fined, imprisoned, and killed for exercising a constitutionally protected right.
YOU CAN HELP ensure that the best possible Second Amendment case is made by donating to the effort right now � while we have the most time available to properly prepare.
to work in support of this case.
To DONATE NOW to the Lawsuit Fund by credit card or e-check, Click Here. To donate by mail, Click Here.
NOTE: An escrow account has been established solely for the purpose of funding this lawsuit. Monies donated to this lawsuit will ONLY be used FOR this lawsuit.
If you answered our poll and pledged financial support for a case like this one, now is the time to honor your pledge. If you didn�t answer it, take a look at it and see how you would have answered it � and support this Second Amendment case today! To those who donated to our Petition to Enforce the Second Amendment campaign: This case, and our involvement in it, are directly related to that petition. Your donations have had a tremendous and important effect in this matter so far. Thank you!
In 1999, California�s Democrat-controlled government issued an edict banning the sale, manufacture, or importation into the state of all semi-automatic rifles having combinations of arbitrarily-selected ergonomic features, such as detachable magazines, folding stocks, flash suppressors, and pistol grips. If you already owned such a rifle, the edict said you must register it with the state.
Predictably, Silveira v. Lockyer was tossed out by that court. Gorski appealed to the infamously liberal, frequently overturned U.S. Ninth Circuit Court. The only court that can overturn this Ninth Circuit Court ruling is the U.S. Supreme Court.
As expected, a three-judge panel dismissed all of Gorski�s claims but � unexpectedly � one: the court agreed with Gorski that retired police officers were not �super citizens� who were exempt from the semi-auto ban. Good for Mr. Gorski! Now these retired officers must join us in this fight if they want their freedoms back.
If just four Supreme Court justices agree to hear Silveira v. Lockyer, it will be the first Second Amendment-based case heard by the court since 1939. Regardless of any arguments against bringing such a case to the court at this time � arguments with which we disagree and which are addressed below � Mr. Gorski and the plaintiffs are committed to doing so.
No Ruling. A Supreme Court refusal to hear Silveira v. Lockyer will not set a harmful legal precedent. That is because such a refusal says nothing whatsoever about the merits of the plaintiffs� claims. Future Second Amendment cases addressing the same issues can still be brought before the high court.
Best Ruling. The best Supreme Court ruling would be the one that is historically, constitutionally, and logically sound; such a ruling would be: (1) consistent with the very purpose of the 14th Amendment, which is to clarify that the Bill of Rights applies to the states and applies to everyone in the United States; (2) consistent with �incorporation� precedents set by rulings on other Amendments in the Bill of Rights; (3) consistent with all other instances in the Bill of Rights where �the people� refers to an individual right; and (4) consistent with one purpose of the Second Amendment that the Founders thought it wise to mention explicitly � that is, having a citizen militia free to arm itself with weapons suitable for fighting either an invading army or the army of our own government, should it become tyrannical.
Such a ruling has the potential to eliminate most of the harassment, fines, criminal charges, imprisonment, and killing of citizens that we have too long endured under the guise of �reasonable gun control�.
Next Best Ruling. Even a Supreme Court ruling that is constitutionally sound on just the first two aspects that must be addressed in Silveira v. Lockyer (�incorporation� and �individual right�), but which upheld � for whatever foolish, illogical, unconstitutional reasons � the California ban on selected semi-automatic rifles, would still have a tremendous, positive, permanent effect on our right to buy, own, carry, and use firearms � and would leave the door open to future challenges regarding our right to own military pattern rifles.
Worst Ruling? The worst Supreme Court ruling would be that: (1) the Second Amendment � unlike other Amendments in the Bill of Rights � can be ignored by the states, and/or that (2) the Second Amendment � unlike other amendments using the words � the people� � does not actually refer to �the people� or their individual rights. That would mean the �new� Second Amendment is now shrunken, in effect, to �The right of the states to arm militias cannot be infringed by the federal government�. In practice, this would mean that the federal government (which controls interpretation of the Constitution) and any state government would have the power to ban any firearm it chose to ban, including bolt action or lever-action rifles. This would be quite shocking to every gun owner in America. But it would make it absolutely clear that the Supreme Court will uphold the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment only when it feels like it. What Americans would do about that situation would remain to be seen.
Bottom Line. Because this case may be heard by the Supreme Court, we absolutely must have the funds to support the ongoing research and application of legal expertise necessary to win.
Your donation will enable Mr. Gorski to devote all the time necessary to prevail in this case.
Your donation will support original research that Mr. Gorski will rely heavily upon to perfect his case. Much of this research and writing has already been completed by the late Roy Lucas, the highly experienced and well-known appellate court attorney and Constitutional litigation expert.
Your donation will pay for any other outside counsel or assistance that Mr. Gorski or KeepAndBearArm.com feel is necessary to prevail in this case.
Combined donations � if sufficient � will enable us to support other Second Amendment cases.
Currently KeepAndBearArms.com does not have the funds to properly support this case, and no other organizations have taken on this task � though several were approached by Mr. Gorski.
We ask you to donate to the Legal Fund via KeepAndBearArms.com.
Previously, some constitutional experts and gun rights attorneys had criticized Silveira v. Lockyer on strategic grounds. That is, they agreed with the goals and claims made in the lawsuit, but thought that it asked the Supreme Court to decide too many issues.
In this case those issues would be: whether the Second Amendment takes precedence over certain state gun laws � that is, whether it has been �incorporated� as the law of the land; whether the Second Amendment is an individual right; whether the Second Amendment protects all individually portable, magazine-fed semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, regardless of features such as a flash hider, pistol grip, collapsible stock, bayonet lug, etc.; and possibly: whether a state may compel registration of such firearms.
(1) The first case in which the Supreme Court rules positively on either the first or second item above (individual right, incorporation) will result in a huge flood of Second Amendment-based cases taking that ruling as a starting point. Therefore, the Supreme Court will almost immediately be faced with deciding the remaining issues anyway, and many more. The justices know this, and they may well feel it is best to deal with as much of this as possible in one fell swoop, rather than drag the matter out in a hundred more cases.
And keep in mind that the Supreme Court is not necessarily loath to take on cases that will have broad, sweeping results regarding existing state laws and practices. Consider Roe v. Wade (which wiped out the anti-abortion laws of every state); or the two rulings on the constitutionality of the death sentence, the first prohibiting it, the second reinstating it.
(2) Again, the criticism of Silveira v. Lockyer is not that it makes incorrect claims. The criticism is that it takes on too many aspects of the Second Amendment at one time. But this automatically implies that the better strategy is to take one step at a time, spread out over the years � or decades.
Setting aside rebuttal point #1 above, this �incremental� Second Amendment strategy depends completely on future Supreme Court justices being either equally supportive of the right to own and use guns as the current Supreme Court, or even more supportive of that right. Obviously, if we assume future justices will be less likely to give positive Second Amendment rulings, we should press our case immediately.
But there is absolutely no reason to believe that future Supreme Court justices will be �better� regarding the Second Amendment (or indeed the Bill of Rights in general). In fact, historically speaking, there is good reason to believe they will be worse. Just ask yourself � in the 1950�s, were the courts (and the nation�s laws) generally more accepting of the right to own and use guns than today, or less?
Ask yourself � would the Ninth Circuit Court of just thirty years ago have had the grotesque audacity to rule that the Second Amendment did not guarantee an individual right to own and use guns?
Another question � assuming that few, or zero, Supreme Court decisions regarding the Second Amendment are made any time soon, would you guess that the courts in 10, 20, 30, or 40 years will be generally more accepting of the right to own and use guns than today, or less?
If your answers to the question above is less, then of course it is better if we immediately settle as many Second Amendment issues as we can.
(3) The third reason why the �too much at once� criticism of Silveira v. Lockyer may not matter is this simple fact � it�s too late to worry about it. Before deciding what to do about the Silveira v. Lockyer case, we questioned Mr. Gorski � who speaks for the plaintiffs � about his commitment to appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Regarding the last part of his statement: if the Ninth Circuit Court did reverse its own ruling that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms (Hickman v. Block, and the 3-judge ruling on Silveira v. Lockyer), then the case will have been won, and the California rifle ban will have been struck down, setting a powerful precedent.
Of course, there is virtually zero chance that the full Ninth Circuit court will reverse its rulings. That is why Mr. Gorski is devoting all the necessary time, and utilizing expert advice, in perfecting his petition asking the Supreme Court to hear Silveira v. Lockyer, and that the Supreme Court reverse the ruling of the most-reversed circuit court in the United States, the Ninth Circuit Court.
Mr. Gorski and the plaintiffs are committed to taking Silveira v. Lockyer to the Supreme Court � that decision is out of our hands, and we accept it as reality.
Given that information, your choice now is to either stand on the sidelines and hope for the best, or help Mr. Gorski prepare the best, most complete, most powerful case possible for affirming our individual right to own and use firearms. Help us do the latter by donating right now to KeepAndBearArms.com -- the money will be held in an escrow account devoted solely to supporting this lawsuit, and any others, should the court refuse to hear this one.
Is it possible that the Supreme Court will refuse to hear Silveira v. Lockyer?
Yes, it is possible. But even the �experts� have no way to determine in advance if the Court will hear a case. But because there is a good chance that they will hear Silveira v. Lockyer, we must have every detail of our research and arguments prepared. This takes time � and money.
If the Supreme Court refuses to hear Silveira v. Lockyer, have I wasted my donation?
Absolutely NOT! If the Supreme Court refuses to hear Silveira v. Lockyer, what we learn in pursuing the case and in preparing for it will be directly applicable to future cases. Additionally, your donation(s) will enable us to continue building on Roy Lucas' work. This original, essential legal research and writing is directly applicable to future gun rights cases. Finally, your donation(s) will help support any lower level cases that we believe will make good, strong Second Amendment cases to appeal to the Supreme Court. In fact we're looking into such cases right now.
Will it hurt our cause if the Supreme Court does NOT hear this case?
Except for the fact that we may have to wait years or even decades for another Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court, the answer is NO, it will not hurt the gun rights movement. A Supreme Court refusal to hear a case means absolutely NOTHING regarding the merits of the case; that is, regarding the validity of the claims made in the case.
Why did Citizens Of America and KeepAndBearArms.com commit to raising funds for this case?
We gauged the commitment of Mr. Gorski to this case, and we determined that Mr. Gorski's petition to the Supreme Court contains work that is several levels above his initial complaint -- a direct result of utilizing the advice of Roy Lucas. Thus we have: (1) accepted the likelihood of the case being heard by the Supreme Court; and (2) noted that even if it is not heard, the simultaneous supporting research and writing done by Roy Lucas will be extremely valuable for future cases.
It is important to note that, should Mr. Gorski�s case be granted a hearing by the Supreme Court, many gun rights organizations will instantly offer whatever help they can in this case.
Finally, KABA took the time to investigate this case and decided to support it because we are committed to seeing a definitive Second Amendment decision by the Supreme Court. We do not want to endure, to the end of our lifetimes and conceivably our children�s lifetimes, the �laws� which allow the terrible harassment, fines, imprisonment, and killing of Americans who are simply exercising a right recognized and protected by the Bill of Rights. That situation is unacceptable.
Is KeepAndBearArms.com the best organization to support this case?
(1) Efficient Use of Funds. Consistent with our commitment to use your donations wisely, KeepAndBearArms.com uses only minimal paid staffs. We use temporary subcontractors for work we can�t do in-house. We use volunteer help whenever possible; that includes hundreds of volunteers. We do not use expensive commercial fundraising organizations, expensive commercial office space, or expensive direct mail fundraising. Every dollar you give us is used as efficiently and effectively as possible. We've also established an escrow account solely for the purpose of an RKBA lawsuit � we will not use the money for anything else.
(2) Steadfast vision. Our organization is committed to NO COMPROMISE on the original intent of the Second Amendment. We are committed to running our organization ethically. As noted above, we are committed to ending � as soon as possible � the harassment, imprisonment, and killing of Americans who are simply exercising a right recognized and protected by the Second Amendment. We don't want unconstitutional laws enforced; we want them repealed!
(4) Unique relationship. Our investigation of Silveira v. Lockyer, our conversations with attorneys Gary Gorski and the late Roy Lucas � and our eventual introduction of these two men � resulted in an agreement to fund their mutually beneficial work.
YOUR CHOICE NOW is to either stand on the sidelines and hope for the best, or support our effort to produce the most complete, most powerful legal brief for Silveira v. Lockyer - while simultaneously supporting the continuation of Roy Lucas' original, crucial scholarly literature, his model brief for any future gun rights cases, and the use of his expert supporting advice to Mr. Gorski.
Some people will claim that Silveira v. Lockyer is the wrong case at the wrong time, etc. to bring a Second Amendment case to the High Court. There is always the possibility that this is true. But (1) we disagree, and (2) similar things about other cases have been said for the last 30 years, the Emerson case being one of the latest.
Expanding on the points we have made previously, we offer the following extended analysis, which is an excerpt from Brian Puckett�s 1999 article, A Plan to Restore the Second Amendment. If you�re already on our side in supporting this lawsuit, you can simply click here and donate by mail, credit card, or e-check.
We can, year after year, fight existing laws piecemeal, only to have similar but re-worded laws passed to replace them. We can, year after year, muster together in our cities and states and fight by political means the hundreds of proposed new laws, winning some and losing some. We can, year after year, donate millions of dollars to the NRA and to politicians, though both have agendas that often do not coincide with the clear, unfettered exercise of the Second Amendment. But it is obviously a losing strategy, since over the last few decades we have steadily lost ground.
The reasons for this are many. They include the effect of anti-gun propaganda generated by the government and communications media, and the failure of increasingly socialized, urbanized, history-illiterate citizens to understand the importance of an armed citizenry in maintaining freedom. Also included is the fact that the largest gun-rights organization, the NRA, has no courts-related strategy for regaining our lost rights, or even maintaining the status quo. Their plan, and the plan of the gun community in general, is the tactical non-plan of simply reacting to the assaults of the anti-gun forces.
Another reason our current piecemeal strategy doesn't work is that it costs a politician nothing to craft a new anti-gun law and put it up for a vote � year after year. Gun owners, however, must spend time and money and effort every time they do this, year after year, and fatigue sets in. Eventually, the public backlash and political feedback against proposed laws weakens and the anti-gun law is passed.
The most common argument against Second Amendment based lawsuits is, "What if we lose?" The simplest and clearest answer is that we have already lost and have nothing else to lose. The juggernaut coalition of fools, "pacifists", weapon-phobes, utopianists, one-world statists, and political opportunists � all aided by the western communications media � have created an anti-gun sentiment of overwhelming force. Steadily, every year, our gun rights shrink as more and more laws are passed.
By means of state and federal legislation, every fundamental principle relevant to the Second Amendment has been violated � freedom to bear arms in public, government permission to own or carry, firearm transport, bullet design, firearm storage, firearm style/design, magazine capacity, arbitrary designation as a "destructive device", waiting periods, limits on purchases per month. Every one of these aspects of gun law establishes a precedent which � unless challenged now � can and will be expanded upon to virtually eliminate the Second Amendment.
For example, if a five-day waiting period is allowable and good as a "cool down" period, then six days, ten days, or one month would be better. If a ten-round magazine is reasonable and good because it supposedly provides an interval in which a lunatic shooter can be overcome while he reloads, then a five-round magazine, or single shot firearms, are better. If banning military looking semi-autos is reasonable and good, then banning all semi-autos � since the difference is merely cosmetic � is best.
And now a new anti-gun campaign has just been initiated, directed toward owners of scoped .50 BMG caliber rifles. The anti-gun propagandists intend to whip up a fear frenzy against the rifles by stating that they can accurately kill a target up to 2,000 yards away. Of course this depends upon the marksman, but if they succeed in having such firearms banned, the principle has been established. If being able to shoot someone 2,000 yards away with a .50 caliber rifle is bad, isn't it really just as bad to be able to shoot someone 1,500 yards away with a .338 Lapua rifle? And isn't that just as bad, really, as being able to shoot someone 1,000 yards away with a 7mm magnum, or 800 yards away with a .308? And so on down the line.
Again, the bottom line is that, legislatively speaking, we have already lost the battle of fundamental principles relevant to keeping and bearing arms. And though we still have limited access to our firearms, a continuation of current legislative trends will eventually wipe out the last vestiges of the Second Amendment.
That is why we must bore through the upper layers of legislative morass and reach the bedrock of the Constitution.
The good news is that we have the Constitution on our side. The bad news is that the Supreme Court does not necessarily base its decisions on Constitutional matters upon the Constitution. They may rule against us in one or more areas.
And yet it is my opinion that (1) they are more likely to rule for us on the fundamentals, and that (2) it will probably be just as positive if they rule against us. Therefore, the important thing is that they make a decision.
The basis of my opinion concerning the probability of the Supreme Court ruling positively on all three aspects of the Second Amendment mentioned is that we have a huge body of history, tradition, founders' documents, and actual case law on our side.
This is especially true regarding the issue of the Second Amendment referring to an individual right. The history, tradition, founders' documents are all well known to most gun rights activists and are well documented in books such as That Every Man Be Armed, by Stephen P. Halbrook.
Another very important factor on our side is millions of armed Americans who have no intention of giving up their personal right.
The likelihood of the Court sweeping aside all of the above and ruling that the Second Amendment suddenly does not refer to an individual right would seem to be remote.
The issue of the Second Amendment not being the supreme law of the land, i.e. not being an "incorporated right" such as freedom of religion, press, speech, etc., all of which states may not abrogate, is somewhat less certain, but only somewhat. The fact is, the Second Amendment is worded like other amendments referring to an individual right, is placed with other individual rights amendments in the Bill of Rights, is supported as referring to an individual right by the vast majority of scholarly writings on the subject, and has been treated as referring to an individual right in past jurisprudence since before the inception of the nation.
Further, any diminishment of the Second Amendment as referring to an individual right places other individual rights protected by the Bill of Rights in danger of being similarly eroded or voided by whimsical future rulings. It is doubtful that the Supreme Court will sweep all of this aside, either.
Finally, the "militia" issue � that is to say, the principle that citizens are the militia and have the right to own military type weapons, would seem to be the most obviously supportable of all. After all, the Second Amendment specifically mentions the militia as a paramount reason for citizens to keep and bear arms. Further, founders' writings, history, tradition, and an utterly clear definition in U.S. Code of the militia as being comprised of ordinary citizens all support our side.
[T]he Second Amendment states "�the right of the people to keep and bear arms�". It does not state "�the right of the militia to keep and bear arms�". The militia is merely the reason cited for protecting the people's right to keep and bear arms, and the word "people" used in the Bill of Rights is unambiguous.
[A]s for the Court deciding that Americans can only own militarily useful firearms, the fact is that virtually every sort of firearm � revolvers, pistols, shotguns, submachine guns, semi-auto rifles and carbines, and scoped and un-scoped bolt-action rifles, and high capacity magazines for those firearms that utilize magazines � are, or have been, used by the military. What is left to be banned?
Is the Worst Case Scenario Actually Bad?
But let us assume that the Supreme Court � in defiance of morality, history, tradition, Constitution, and case law � rules that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says. In my opinion it will be better for this to happen sooner rather than later. The more time that passes, the more time there is for the government and the communications media to propagandize against guns. As more time passes, more people will become habituated to loss of rights; more younger people, ignorant of American and world history due to spending time in government (public) schools, will reach voting age; more older people, for whom country and Constitution are meaningful and worth fighting for, become infirm or pass away. The tide seems to be turning against government school indoctrination, but for the foreseeable future the government has the upper hand in the sheer number of children it indoctrinates.
Another point: there are an estimated 80 to 100 million gun owners in the United States. The number of gun owners actively engaged in defending the right to keep and bear arms is only a fraction of this number. A negative Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment would give a sharp, wakening slap in the face to all the gun owners who have done nothing in the fight for gun rights. The idea of 80 to 100 million people suddenly becoming a motivated political bloc does not strike us as a negative development. That many people agitating against a government which has just abrogated a fundamental right can, in short order, effect a reversal of government policy.
And finally, a negative Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment will serve notice to all Americans that the fundamental charter of the land is not worth the paper it is printed on, and that the social, political, and legal compact which has held this country together for over two centuries and has made it the greatest nation in history is broken. Any illusions about the direction the political/financial elite wishes the United States of America to take will be shattered.
AGAIN, YOUR CHOICE is to either stand on the sidelines and hope for the best, or support our effort to produce the most complete, most powerful legal brief for Silveira v. Lockyer � while simultaneously supporting Roy Lucas� original, crucial scholarly literature, his model brief for any future gun rights cases, and his ability to offer expert supporting advice to Mr. Gorski.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.