rec'd. from afa@armedandfemalesofamerica.com


PDA






alan
July 15, 2003, 11:22 PM
A Second Amendment lawsuit has been petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case, Silveira v. Lockyer, which originated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, was previously appealed to the U. S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, resulting in a deeply divided ruling. The lawsuit seeks to address at least two specific aspects of the Second Amendment, namely: does the Second Amendment apply to the states in the same way that the First, Fourth, and Fifth amendments apply, and does it guarantee an individual right, in the same manner as those other amendments to the Bill of Rights.



"It's time to put an end to the flawed jurisprudence stemming from blatant disregard for our right to own and use firearms. We believe the Court must finally do the right thing by hearing this vital case." Said, Gary W. Gorski, Attorney for the Plaintiffs. Read the text of the Petition here: http://KeepAndBearArms.com/Silveira/cert.pdf



In a “strange” turn of events the National Rifle Association/California Rifle and Pistol Association will announce their intention to file an amicus (friend of the court) petition supporting the position of the State of California.



Armed Females of America does not support the NRA position and we will be filing our own amicus brief in support of our individual right to keep and bear arms.




My comments and questions:
Phone calls to NRA headquarters in Virginia today regarding "a strange turn of events", elicited no answer to questions concerning the above mentioned NRA amicus brief.

If it turns out that afa is blowing opium smoke, they should be soundly rejected, however if it turns out that NRA has or is planning to submit a brief SUPPORTING California in this case, then it strikes me that NRA, of which I'm a long standing LIFE MEMBER has some very serious questions to answer.

By the way, one of these questions is the following. When I called today, to get a yes or no answer, that was all that I sought, why was such answer unavailable?

If you enjoyed reading about "rec'd. from afa@armedandfemalesofamerica.com" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Tempest
July 16, 2003, 08:43 AM
CRPA, and now additional "friends of the court" will almost certainly be filing an amicus brief in SCOTUS to ask them NOT to hear that Silveira case.

From Chuck Michel's May 9, 2003 memo (http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/michel/index.shtml).

If he thinks it's such a bad case, why is the NRA raising money on it? (http://keepandbeararms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3554)

alan
July 16, 2003, 03:02 PM
Tempest:

Wheels within wheels, huh?

By the bye, via a phone conversation this A.M. with ILA, they CONFIRMED comment fromn afa. That is to say that NRA has or will file said amicus brief.

Really interesting a picture isn't it, the nations premier pro-gun??? organization files a brief in opposition to the gun rights of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

Today's mail brought, would you believe, a fund raising letter from NRA, along with the usual questionaire/survey, which included a request for money. Leaves one shaking their head.

Gordon Fink
July 16, 2003, 03:14 PM
I realize Silveira is not the best case, but what the hell is going on here!?

~G. Fink

alan
July 16, 2003, 03:34 PM
Gordon Fink:

Try asking NRA. You might have better luck getting a real answer than I did.

As I noted, wheels within wheels seems an appropriate observation. It might also boil down to something like the following. Like any number of other large, mass membership organizations, "stuff" flows down hill, from headquarters toward the great unwashed.

Essentially quite obedience and money are all that are desired by the movers and shakers. As has been noted elsewhere, "exceptions to the foregoing are neither desired, nor will they be entertained".

Jeff Timm
July 16, 2003, 05:25 PM
Alan Said: By the bye, via a phone conversation this A.M. with ILA, they CONFIRMED comment fromn afa. That is to say that NRA has or will file said amicus brief.

Just because it is a "Friend of the Court Brief" does not mean it's taking the side of the PROSECUTION!

The "Court" is supposed to be neutral. This kind of brief is often used to comment on a point of law or other legal BS. It could just be a proposal to the court to hold a decision pending an appeal to a higher court, then basing a decision on that appeal.

Geoff
Who was a legal clerk in the Army, once upon a time.
"The Judge only cares about getting these people out of his court room so the next case can get in. The Prosecutor only cares about his conviction record or how much bribe money he can get. The Defense Attorney cares only about getting his client off by any lie, trick or crime he can arrange. The Jury, and only the Jury considers right and wrong or places any value on right and wrong."

alan
July 16, 2003, 06:26 PM
Jeff Timm:

The conversation had with NRA earlier today, CONFIRMED their position, that is to say that their amicus brief SUPPORTS the state, meaning that it opposes the position of the citizens, regarding their firearms rights.

The rest of your post, while interesting, leaves me curious.

Tempest
July 16, 2003, 06:35 PM
Alan - it boggles my mind. The NRA doesn't think this is the best case - OK, they're entitled to their opinion. A prominent attorney, Roy Lucas (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Lucas/roy.asp) appears to think otherwise. But that's beside the point. Why would the premiere organization dedicated to defending our rights file in support of the gun grabbers????? Even if they think Gorski is banging his head against the wall and the suit will be unsuccessful, why would they publicly support the enemy?

And why, ferkrissakes, would they try to raise money on a suit they apparently don't support??????? :banghead:

alan
July 16, 2003, 07:26 PM
Tempest:

You posed some interesting questions, questions to which I lack answers. Possibly others can furnish said answers.

Possibly the answers might lie in and or with the claim, made by others, that rather than being a premire pro-gun organization, the NRA is a premier pro-gun control organization.

As for myself, I don't know, however I have often wondered as to exactly what it is that winds NRA up in the morning.

Tempest
July 16, 2003, 07:41 PM
Alan, I did some freelance work for the NRA not so long ago. I've worked with some absolutely phenomenal and committed people - folks who live and breathe our rights. But this... Chuck Michel needs a hot tar enema. :fire:

Boats
July 16, 2003, 07:45 PM
Is all of this really such a mystery?:rolleyes: The feigned questioning really makes me cynical.

1) Reasonable attorneys disagree on whether the Silveira case does more harm to the cause than good. Guess what? They do actually disagree on this matter.

2) An amicus brief can be supportive of one or the other parties or supportive of neither. It is a brief submitted to the court with the permission of at least one of the captioned participants, but it doesn't follow that the brief is necessarily supportive of the party who permits it. The NRA's alleged legal position against standing for the plaintiffs is unusual, but not unheard of, because it undercuts the arguments of both sides by essentially mooting the case. That said, the idea that the SCOTUS will have four votes to hear the case is weirder. The four most likely members to grant cert will do so only if they have five votes because they will only take it into their chambers if they can assure a majority to win the case.

Thefore, the current make-up of the Supreme Court is unreliable for the standard model position and incorporation of the 2A onto the states, the two points needed to win, at a minimum, to get the SCOTUS to overturn the 9th's interpretation of California law and the federal Constitution. The NRA's distaste for Silveira is not hard to understand--taking a 2A case before Reinhardt was a fool's errand--akin to trying to eat by knocking down a hornet's nest--all sting and no honey.

3) The only law-abiding people in America at the moment without the right to own a firearm is Californians (and those poor saps in DC). Federalism dictates that states can offer more constitutional protection than the federal government, but not less. Every other state in the Ninth, with the possible exception of Hawaii, has far stronger firearms protections in their state constitutions than the feds or California. One need not necessarily win a court case. To paraphrase Andrew Jackson "Reinhardt has his opinion, now let him enforce it." The California politicians, laws, and constitution are all far easier to change than the make-up of the Ninth or SCOTUS.

4) KABA and AFA have an axe to grind with the NRA--What's new here?

5) The NRA would still need to exist even if Silveira were somehow heard and won. The antis would just shift the debate to "permissible restrictions of a constitutional right." Therefore, antis will still raise money using every scare tactic available. The NRA also seemingly has an endless appetite for money. Why on earth would they want a successful 2A case? They tried to torpedo the CATO case in DC, which is far more viable than Silveira. What's new about this?

Never fear, there's enough blame and fingerpointing to go around.

Tempest
July 16, 2003, 08:03 PM
Boats, don't give me the "KABA and AFA have an axe to grind" line. It won't wash this time. Yes, attorneys disagree on what's the best cast to take to SCOTUS. They disagree on Silveira's merits. DUH! That's all well and good. But you heard alan say earlier that ILA specifically stated they would support Lockyear in this matter! Now, I don't give a rat's red rump if they disagree on the merits of the case. But to support the enemies of freedom in ANY case involving the Second Amendment is inexcusable! Unfortunately only the densest NRA apologists can't see that. :rolleyes:

Tempest
July 16, 2003, 08:05 PM
And you have still to answer the question: why would the NRA try to raise money on a case that wasn't theirs, and a case that they, in fact, find flawed?

Boats
July 16, 2003, 09:50 PM
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz:ozzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZ

Tempest
July 16, 2003, 09:51 PM
How intelligent. :rolleyes: Do yourself a favor and grow up.

tyme
July 16, 2003, 10:05 PM
Is it inconceivable that the NRA is taking an anti-Silveira position to give the SCOTUS liberals political cover should they join in a pro-2A decision?

Boats
July 16, 2003, 11:19 PM
Hmmmm. A lady without a mirror! Fascinating. Rule 4 Tempest. Rule 4. See ya on your next anti-NRA rant.

alan
July 16, 2003, 11:22 PM
tyme: I find myself curious as to comment in your post. Same appears below: "Is it inconceivable that the NRA is taking an anti-Silveira position to give the SCOTUS liberals political cover should they join in a pro-2A decision?"

Re your mention of "political cover" for liberals on SCOTUS, I hadn't noticed that someone was preparing to run against them in the next primary of general election.

Tempest:

I'm casually acquainted wth a fairly high level offical at a local office of the BATFE, as it is now known. We talk now and then, and have lunch occassionally. My acquaintance seems like a perfectly decent guy. As for his agency, that is another matter, allowing the fact that at really high levels, they might well be rotten to their core, and this represents my attempt to remain within the bounds of polite discourse.

The peole you worked with at NRA, as you say, might well have been wonderful folks. There are others at NRA, about whom the same simply cannot be said.

tyme
July 17, 2003, 12:09 AM
It's not as though any of the justices are immune from political influence, even if they don't have to worry about being replaced by voters. They're all politically biased, and I think if they could figure out a rationale to uphold the 2nd (and its incorporation) consistent with their political views, they'd do it given the weight of the evidence. I just think it might be easier for someone who's been at odds with the political idealogy of the NRA (or its core constituency) for much of his life to go pro-RKBA if it meant giving the NRA the finger.

jimpeel
July 17, 2003, 04:25 AM
Another bit of lunacy from the NRA is detailed here: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30534

HBK
July 17, 2003, 04:45 AM
Perhaps if we replied, "I'm sorry, but I cannot in good faith donate more money to the NRA when they oppose 2nd ammendment-friendly court cases" on the little forms they send out to gather donations, they would take notice. The only thing that gets their attention is when you hit them in the wallet.

Tempest
July 17, 2003, 09:09 AM
Hmmmm. A lady without a mirror! Fascinating. Rule 4 Tempest. Rule 4. See ya on your next anti-NRA rant. Hmmmm. I ask you a legitimate question. You can't answer it. You proceed to come back with an immature "ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ:o zzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZ" reply befitting someone who can't effectively counter or answer an argument. And then when legitimately told to grow up, you proceed to throw rules in my face? How charmingly juvenile! By the way, it's not MY anti-NRA thread. I was simply replying for a request for more information. Very nice red herring, however. :rolleyes:

The peole you worked with at NRA, as you say, might well have been wonderful folks. There are others at NRA, about whom the same simply cannot be said. Alan, I think that can be said for any large agency. I haven't met Wayne LaPierre or Chris Cox. The people I worked with were primarily in the publications department - the folks who put out their magazines. I don't have one negative thing to say about any of them.

When I wrote "Betrayal of Trust," I urged anyone who sent me feedback not to give up their membership, but to work for changes from the inside. However, the more I read of this, the more I'm thinking I was dead wrong. My husband urged me to give up my membership from the start. I decided not to do that just yet. I'm seriously reconsidering. :(

Boats
July 17, 2003, 10:11 AM
Sorry Tempest, but I have had to gauge how clueless I think you are or if you are just being somewhat cleverly rhetorical with all of your huffing. I still don't know what to think.

Boats, don't give me the "KABA and AFA have an axe to grind" line. It won't wash this time.

Of course it never washes with you so what you have to say about the sincerity of your own grudge is beside the point.

Yes, attorneys disagree on what's the best cast to take to SCOTUS. They disagree on Silveira's merits. DUH! That's all well and good. But you heard alan say earlier that ILA specifically stated they would support Lockyear in this matter!

You are obviously not a lawyer. The statements made in this thread are inherently contradictory. I do not care who it is, arguing that the plaintiffs lack standing is not supporting Lockyer's position. Were the SCOTUS to take the case and adopt the NRA's reported position it would throw out the case, effectively making the arguments of the parties involved a non-event. Hmmm. Would Gorski want the NRA making this point to the court? No. So the NRA has probably asked Lockyer to assent to the NRA's filing of an amicus curae brief, they should ask Gorski too, but could overcome opposition by petitioning directly to the SCOTUS, since assent from both of the parties is usually required. That is almost always a formality, one more likely to be gained from the CA DOJ and not from Gorski's camp, not support, unless of course your definition of support is so elastic as to be meaningless.

Now, I don't give a rat's red rump if they disagree on the merits of the case. But to support the enemies of freedom in ANY case involving the Second Amendment is inexcusable! Unfortunately only the densest NRA apologists can't see that.

One more time before we have to get remedial. An amicus brief, especially on on whether cert should be granted, is addressed to the court. I doesn't necessarily support one side or the other, but it has to be introduced from one side or the other. Since Gorski wants cert and the NRA doesn't, they have to approach Lockyer. The NRA can bring up points of procedure that have been glossed over by the lower courts. That sounds like the what the NRA is doing, especially since in your case, the side petitioning is the loser at every level to date. The NRA undoubtedly would like to see Silveria thrown out than run the risk of a nationwide anti-2A ruling on what to date has been a good-faith, but not very strategic case.

And you have still to answer the question: why would the NRA try to raise money on a case that wasn't theirs, and a case that they, in fact, find flawed?

I haven't received a call on this latest purported pitch, but I have a good idea why the NRA might be raising money citing Reinhardt's decision. Your boy lost--and he lost HARD. Via Gorski's efforts all you guys have succeeded in doing to date is explicitly obviating the right to own a firearm in the Ninth Circuit if the state doesn't secure that right adequately. Great job! If the NRA is raising money on the case, it is not necessarily that they intend to support Gorski, it could be to pay for efforts to have the opinion to date mooted, which would undo it. It could be that they will use money raised to lobby Congress to finally do something. It could be that they are building a war chest to elect politicians to amend the California constitution to make Reinhardt's opinion irrelevant. Whatever the reason, citing a high profile federal court loss is never a bad move as a motivator to fund raising. You, because of your prejudice, naturally gravitate to the most sinister explanation possible. That doesn't mean it is so.

Say what you will, and you will, but the NRA would never have taken a case like this before that pack of robed buffoons in San Francisco because they happen to be smart enough to count noses for and against. Gorski seemed to have been motivated by the unfounded belief that the judges would actually reason out that the 2A was an individual right and do their duty by agreeing with him. Anyone who has been a lawyer for any length of time with court experience should know better, i.e. that many judges out there will make the law fit their preconceived notions of social justice or policy preference. To believe that it would be otherwise in front of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is naive in the extreme.

I had a hard time believing that supposedly educated and smart people could be so obtuse as to the facts that confront them. I wonder no more.

The ZZZZzzzzz:o zzzzzzZZZZZZ was because I knew you wouldn't read what I wrote, and just flit to the anti-KABA line. If you had read it, you'd have already known how the amicus curae process works and asking permission to file one does not equivalate support of part, much less all, of the position the party permission is sought from. Had you read it, and even if coming from me, someone you don't like, and checked it out on your own, you'd know that amicus briefs are used for arguments that neither party has adopted as often as they are used to support actual positions already presented. However you have your own agenda, why let a little reading of facts from other quarters get in your way?

Continue to deny the amicus curae process at the SCOTUS works as I described.

Continue to think you have a winning case you have dumped time and money into.

[EDITED OUT] I apologize for this one.

Continue to think that no one would dare raise money citing a massacre in court.

You're on the shining path, why let yourself get distracted by little ole me? I am not writing for your benefit, only for those that might be taken in by your misstatements of reality in the amicus curae process and other tidbits I don't feel are straight shooting.

Tempest
July 17, 2003, 10:39 AM
I have mentioned nothing about the amicus curiae process. And I have mentioned nothing about what might be contained in that brief. Alan called ILA and here is his statement:


The conversation had with NRA earlier today, CONFIRMED their position, that is to say that their amicus brief SUPPORTS the state, meaning that it opposes the position of the citizens, regarding their firearms rights.

I don't know what is contained in the brief, and ergo, I have no cause to comment about it, and haven't commented on it. Your failure to read what I have written is duly noted, as is your ignorant arrogance.

An amicus brief is addressed to the court. I doesn't necessarily support one side or the other. One more time "before I have to get remedial" - I fully realize all this. However, alan's post says their brief "SUPPORTS the state."

I haven't received a call on this latest purported pitch, but I have a good idea why the NRA might be raising money citing Reinhardt's decision. Your boy lost--and he lost HARD. Via Gorski's efforts all you guys have succeeded in doing to date is explicitly obviating the right to own a firearm in the Ninth Circuit if the state doesn't secure that right adequately. If you had used the time for something other than acting like an arrogant ??? toward me, you may have read this tidbit:

On January 9, 2003, Thursday evening, I received a phone call from a male identifying himself from the NRA. He verified my NRA membership information, such as my address, and asked a few questions whether I was aware that the 9th Circuit said that I do not have a right to own a gun.

He then proceeded to play a taped message from C. Heston speaking in generalizations about the decision. After the taped message, the telephone solicitor asked me to extend my NRA membership by paying three years in advance to help fight the Ninth Circuit on the case. Curious, I asked who the attorneys were working on the case, and he said the NRA has a whole legion of attorneys "fighting the case" all the way to the Supreme Court.

I asked him the name of the case, and he said Silveira v. Lockyer. I then asked him specifically what the NRA's attorneys were doing on the case, and he said that "they were going to take the case to the Supreme Court" to get the decision overturned. I asked where he was calling from, and he said the NRA in Virginia (The NRA's legal counsel is in VA - 11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, Va. 22030.) I then told him who I was, and he was dumfounded. He said it was a pleasure talking to me, and thanked me for all my hard work. I asked to speak to a manager, and he hung up the phone.

I've also gotten a couple of emails from other people, confirming that they got similar phonecalls as well. Just because you, in your esteemed brilliance, weren't approached, doesn't mean that this didn't happen. This is not just a fundraiser citing the case.



Continue to deny the amicus curae process at the SCOTUS works as I described. I never denied it.



Continue to think you have a winning case you have dumped time and money into. It is my money to do with as I please.



Continue to deny you come here almost singularly to blast the NRA. Why don't you take a look at the history of my posts here (which is pretty short), and notice, by the way, that I am an NRA member, and then issue an apology for stating lies.

Continue to think that no one would dare raise money citing a massacre in court.

Continue to think that no one would dare raise money citing a massacre in court. Except for the tiny little detail that this is not the way it was presented.

Continue making excuses, posting personal attacks and acting like an arrogant, narcissistic windbag. That's about the only thing at which you appear to excel. This conversation is over.

Boats
July 17, 2003, 10:48 AM
Apparently the NRA is working to get the opinion "overturned" just not in the way you'd like.

I have retracted "continue to deny you come here almost singularly to blast the NRA." That was inappropriate and I sincerely apologize for it.

alan
July 17, 2003, 01:20 PM
Tempest:

Just a final thought or two. I too am an NRA Member, Life Member since 1973 or thereabouts. I've never met anyone from the NRA, other than plain old fashioned members thereof.

As to LaPierre and Cox, at one time or another, I have addressed comment to each of them, on one thing of another. Have not yet had the courtesy of ANY SORT of reply.

Looking at the history of things, by the way, years ago, it was 1967, I met Woodson Scott, then a member of the board of NRA, and saw him perform at NYC city council hearings. I was NOT impressed, though he certainly was both REASONABLE AND GENTLEMANLY. Sad to note, his presentation was a whole lot less than effective.

It is my firmly held opinion, which of course could be wrong, that if the NRA, in past years, hadn't spent so much time and effort being REASONABLE AND GENTLEMANLY, that our side might, legislatively speaking, be more than a little better off than we seem to be.

By thje bye, I haven't yet resigned my membership. I've though about it, but haven't done anything more than that, yet.

alan
July 18, 2003, 08:09 PM
Regarding earlier posts concerning an amicus brief to the USSC that armedfemalesofamerica.com, in their July bulletin claimed the NRA was going to submit, supporting California in the case of Silveria v. Lockyer, it now appears that no such brief exists, nor is one in the works.

Within the last couple of hours, I spoke with Mr. Chris Conti, Legislative Counsel for NRA re this matter. Mr. Conti flatly said that no such brief was in the works. He also stated that if the USSC granted cert in Silveria v. Lockyer, that NRA would, at that time be submitting briefs, and that such would not support the position of the state. He also noted that information such as I had received earlier in the week from ILA personnel, stating that NRA had filed such a brief was incorrect.

Based on seemingly incorrect data, if Mr. Conti is to be believed, he sounded straight, I might have caused some confusion, a situation I personally regret. Re this, an old adage comes to mind: Think several times, post once.

If you enjoyed reading about "rec'd. from afa@armedandfemalesofamerica.com" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!