Source: http://keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/news.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 18:47:12+00:00

Document:
NOTE: The above is the online version, but printed copies are also available.
Unintended Consequences Author John Ross Endorses Silveira v. Lockyer Lawsuit.
"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."
Silveira v. Lockyer is Going to the Supreme Court!
"Today is the day many of us have been waiting for. The 9th Circuit Court refused the request for an en banc (full court) rehearing of the Silveira v. Lockyer lawsuit. This was highly predictable. But the order denying the en banc hearing is far better than any of us predicted!"
"I respect both the CRPA and NRA as organizations. I respect the faith and activism of their members. I do not respect many of the actions of their leadership. If you want to know why, read on."
Will the Justices Bite the Bullet?
This is Mr. Mauro's report on the looming decision on whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing the Silveira v. Lockyer case. It's nice that Mr. Mauro took the time to visit our site, but he certainly never contacted us for any information directly.
Justices to hear 2nd Amendment case?
"The Supreme Court is being asked to overturn an appeals court ruling that said the Constitution does not guarantee people a personal right to own a gun."
"Six federal appeals-court judges last week delivered an extraordinary argument for their view that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to own guns."
"It's quite clear that the intent of the Founders were to both respect and protect the rights of Americans to bear arms. The only ones currently confused as to the meaning of the 2nd Amendment are those wacky liberals sitting on the Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. They ruled last week that citizens have no particular rights under the 2nd Amendment. This is in direct conflict with the previous Supreme Court decisions. But hey, what do you expect from the most overruled circuit court in the nation?"
"Americans soon could see a shoot-out at the Supreme Court corral. Two circuit courts have issued contradictory readings of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Such contradictions commonly have been a reason for the top court to attempt to bring consistency to judicial interpretations."
"Let us hope the Supreme Court will soon accept the latest gun-rights case and then clearly rule that Americans have a constitutional right to own certain weapons. ... Ownership of firearms by the average, reasonably careful citizen causes no overwhelming problems. And gun ownership by criminals is not something that an adverse court ruling can prevent."
"Judge Reinhardt's original opinion in Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, clashes with a 2001 ruling from the 5th Circuit, raising the possibility the U.S. Supreme Court will see the need to interpret the Second Amendment and its bearing on gun-control laws."
"The December decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California's law banning certain assault weapons and revived the national gun ownership debate. With Tuesday's action, the nation's largest federal appeals court cleared the way for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court..."
"The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday ruled that there is no individual right to gun possession, holding that only state-run militias have a constitutional right to bear arms."
"Attorney General Bill Lockyer today issued the following statement in response to the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Silveira v. Lockyer, No. 01-15098: 'I am pleased with the court's ruling upholding California's Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act. While I respect the rights of Californians to pursue hunting and sports-shooting, and of law-abiding citizens to protect their homes and businesses, there is no need for these military-style weapons to be on the streets of our state. I also am pleased that the court upheld exceptions to the law for peace officers who may be called to protect public safety even while off-duty. I am disappointed a similar exception for retired officers was not upheld.' "

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