[WAGCEVP]

Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 2:17 PM
Subject: NRA




I was just informed today that the lawfirm of Cooper and Kirk http://cooperkirk.com will be filing an NRA amicus brief in support of Silveira. They were highly impressed with the Cert Petition, and they too are now convinced that Cert will be granted.






Gary W. Gorski

Attorney at Law http://www.gwgorski.com/

SEPS EXERTUS, SEMPER FIDELIS, FRATER INFINITAS

("Often Tested, Always Faithful, Brothers Forever")

916.965.6800

916.965.6801 fax

[41mag M&P]

This isn't the first time they filed a brief in the case. It's just that last time it was in support of the state of california.

[Brett Bellmore]

Is the fact that they filed an amicus brief supposed to be what indicates that they're impressed with the case? Or is there some independent evidence of that? Personally, I'd expect them to file an amicus brief even if they thought the case was probably doomed, just so they could claim some of the credit if it actually were granted cert. Kinda like buying a lotto ticket...

When's the brief going to be made public?

[WAGCEVP]

Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 8:10 PM
Subject: State of California


The State of California (i.e. Lockyer) has filed a notice with the Supreme Court that it will not be filing an opposition to our Cert. Petition --- this definitely increases the chances of Cert being granted from 90% to about 99.9%.




Gary W. Gorski

Attorney at Law http://www.gwgorski.com/

SEPS EXERTUS, SEMPER FIDELIS, FRATER INFINITAS

("Often Tested, Always Faithful, Brothers Forever")

916.965.6800

916.965.6801 fax

[Brett Bellmore]

I might argue about the position of the decimal point, but it certainly does improve the chances. Guess that would be enough to prompt the NRA to move.

[Mark Tyson]

The Super Court rejected the chance to rule on two 2nd Amd. cases earlier this year. Why would they do so now?

[Brett Bellmore]

Honestly, I don't think they would. Now, the Cato case I could see... Unless, hypothetically...

Suppose one or more of the antis on the Court decided that this was the time to take a chance on nailing down the coffin lid on the 2nd amendment, while they still have a majority, before Bush has had a chance to make an appointment? And so joined with the few pro-2nd Justices to grant cert.? That might explain it, and they might have let Lockyer know through back channels, explaining why the state isn't opposing cert.

As I said, Lockyer's failure to oppose cert. makes me nervous.

[MicroBalrog]

There never will be cert.

SCOTUS will IMHO never take the responsibility of a proper ruling on 2nd either way.

They rule the 2nd is not an individual right = they have to go vs. the entire body of existing knowledge of the issue + pi$$ off literally millions of people with guns.

They kick out the California ban = the liberal judges' worst nightmare. The cultural war on guns will be utterly lost.

Thus, no cert. Or, at best, a ruling which will say: "There is an individual right but...." and then whatever excuse they can find to regulate it away, thus shooting th whole gun rights deal in the head while making us feel good.:fire:

[Geech]

Can I view this wonderful cert petition somewhere? I've heard so much about it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, it's over at www.keepandbeararms.com

Now, the NRA's amicus brief, that's what I want to see.

[Geech]

Can't find the cert. Can anyone help me out?

[Brett Bellmore]

To be specific, the petition for writ of certiori is at,

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/cert.pdf

[HBK]

I'm not sure I WANT this court to rule on the 2nd ammendment.

[Brett Bellmore]

Not much point in having a 2nd amendment, if it's never going to be used in court. *I* want the court to take this case, or the Cato case, or any of them.

Look at it this way: If the Court takes a 2nd amendment case, either they uphold the 2nd amendment to at least some extent, in which case the long task of rolling back 60 years of gun control has begun, or they rule totally against it, in which case the backlash will make '94 look like a hiccup. Either way we win SOMETHING. It's the anti-s who don't want the Court to take any 2nd amendment cases at all, so that they can just continue their gradual erosion of our liberties.

We're losing by inches, let's have this out while we've still got the strength to prevail.

[MicroBalrog]

As I have just said, they won't rule.

[Standing Wolf]

"There is an individual right but...." and then whatever excuse they can find to regulate it away, thus shooting th whole gun rights deal in the head while making us feel good.

That's my fear. Too bad we don't have a Republican majority in the Senate so we can begin undoing fifty years' worth of leftist extremist so-called "judicial activism."

[Brett Bellmore]

Nothing's THAT certain. I'd lay odds against it, but I wouldn't bet much.

As I see it, the antis have been a majority on the court for decades, but didn't want to have to dirty their hands with destroying the 2nd. So they were content to let the lower courts do the damage, and just routinely refuse to take the appeals.

Now they're worried, for the same reason we're hopeful. Bush might get to appoint a Supreme court justice or two, and a fair number of lower court judges. And they just might be judges/justices who are prepared to rule honestly about the 2nd amendment. So they might get PRO 2nd rulings appealed to them, instead of just anti-2nd rulings. Some of us might actually get our rights back, to some extent, unless the Supreme court dirties it's hands.

And, worse, the Supreme court itself might end up with a pro-gun majority, in a few more years. It's not certain, even if Bush could appoint whoever he wants, but it's at least possible.

So despite the desire of the antis on the Supreme court to not have to do the work themselves, and gain the personal and eternal hatred of a few tens of millions of gun owners, they might see this as their last chance to, as I said, nail down the lid on the 2nd amendment's coffin. They might be willing to take the heat, in order to get the job done.

Especially knowing that "conservative" judges are such wusses about precident that once they'd done the dirty deed, it would never be undone, even if they lost their majority.

So I wouldn't entirely rule out their granting cert.

[HBK]

I don't know what to hope for here. If they (incorrectly, of course) rule against it, what would happen? Would they try to ban guns outright?

[alan]

Standing Wolf wrote in part: "That's my fear. Too bad we don't have a Republican majority in the Senate so we can begin undoing fifty years' worth of leftist extremist so-called "judicial activism."

There have been REPUBLICANS in every Congress where gun control legislation was enacted. What is it that makes you think that a majority of people labeled REPUBLICAN would accomplish anything to make the pro-gun side happy. Remember that Henry Hyde, in the House, is a REPUBLICAN, and John Dingell is a Democrat. Dingell isn't perfect, but last time I looked, he was a large improvement over Hyde.

[jimpeel]

I would have trusted Ginsburg to do the right thing Constitutionally until I read this: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34118 Now I feel she would do whatever the rest of the world would want her to do regardless of Constitutionality.

[HBK]

I wouldn't trust Ginsburg to clean my cat's litter box.

[Sven]

This will be one to watch.

[Brett Bellmore]

Dingle might be an improvement over Hyde on some days, (Malaria is an improvement over Ebola, too...) but Dingle DID vote for the '94 ban. Nearly losing his office afterwards might have put a scare into him, but we know darned well Dingle is willing to shaft us if he thinks he can get away with it.

By the way, about the Supreme court; I see (http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/archive/2003_08_03_SCOTUSblog.cfm#106002023124035479) that the NRA got denied any oral argument time in the campaign finance deform challenge, as McConnel and the other insider plaintifs asked. So much for showing that nitwit some courtesy by letting him go first on filing against it.

[Sergeant Bob]

Alan What is it that makes you think that a majority of people labeled REPUBLICAN would accomplish anything to make the pro-gun side happy.
That's exactly the point Standing Wolf is trying to make. He just neglected to add a.....:banghead:

[Kharn]

The NRA had better kick their butts into high gear, the Supremes are supposed to respond by August 7th with a yea or nay on the cert. Here's the link to the Supreme Court docket file: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/03-51.htm

Kharn

[seeker_two]

That's my fear. Too bad we don't have a Republican majority in the Senate so we can begin undoing fifty years' worth of leftist extremist so-called "judicial activism."

The pity is that we don't have a CONSERVATIVE, PRO-CONSTITUTION majority in the Senate (& the House, also). Judicial activism is the result of LIBERAL court rulings & the "Constitution-as-a-living-document" crowd.

SCOTUS needs to make a ruling on this once & for all. If pro-2A, then there is legal precidence to dismantle many gun laws & nip the AWB-'04 in the bud. If anti-2A, then we have declared enemies to the Constitution & act accordingly (impeachment, peaceful civil disobedience, jury nullification, etc.)

But this hazy stance of SCOTUS must be discarded once & for all...

the Supremes are supposed to respond by August 7th with a yea or nay on the cert

Two days & counting...:uhoh:

[themic]

don't mistake Bush for being pro-gun. nor his appointments. you never know.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Look at it this way: If the Court takes a 2nd amendment case, either they uphold the 2nd amendment to at least some extent, in which case the long task of rolling back 60 years of gun control has begun, or they rule totally against it, in which case the backlash will make '94 look like a hiccup.

Actually, upholding the Second Amendment to "some extent" could be used to justify the assault weapons ban, registration and all sorts of schemes that would ultimately cripple gun ownership in the US. Even the individual rights interpretation advanced by Ashcroft doesn't actually change the outcome of any recent rulings on guns according to the Justice Department.

The only thing different will be that slippery slope objections will be answered with the Supreme Court ruling that supposedly protects our rights; but what has really changed?

I'd be happy to see an individual rights interpretation; but it doesn't really mean we can all quit and go home. Depending on the decision, it could actually pose a greater threat to our rights than the status quo.

Dingle might be an improvement over Hyde on some days, (Malaria is an improvement over Ebola, too...) but Dingle DID vote for the '94 ban. Nearly losing his office afterwards might have put a scare into him, but we know darned well Dingle is willing to shaft us if he thinks he can get away with it.

The only Representative I could find with a name anywhere close to that is John Dingell (D-MI) - who most assuredly DID NOT vote for the assault weapons ban. ( http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=425&can_id=H1990103 ). Did you mean someone else?


Aside from that, I was underwhelmed by the NRA Amicus Brief in Emerson and to be honest, I'm not really expecting an A-level performance from them here either.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, John Dingell of Michigan, district a few miles from my home, who voted against the ban several times, all the times in fact, except the one time when his voting against it might have made a difference. Why did you suppose he had to resign from the NRA's board of directors? And didn't get a candidate rating for the '94 election, just a phone number you could call to hear excuses?

Take a look at your own link:

"Bill Status:
Bill Number: HR 4296 - 103rd Congress (1993-94)
House Passage Vote: 05/05/94 - Outcome: Passed
Placed on Senate legislative calendar but no further action was taken, never became law."

"NEVER BECAME LAW". Don't you wish that it "never became law"? Of course, it DID become law, thanks to a later vote, and Dingell voted for it THAT TIME.

[2dogs]

Kharn


Is it me or is that list of amicus briefs pretty sparse?
:uhoh::confused:

[Intune]

Okay, let's say the Supremes rule the 2nd to mean the Nat Guard only and our private ownership rights go down the toilet. What's gonna happen? Massive demonstrations by citizens across the land? Armed demonstrations at government bldgs nationwide? Or here's a good one, fill the Mall grounds in D.C. with armed citizens and dare the police (well, by that time, National G's) to take the weapons. Anybody see that happening? Will they bring in the Apaches & chainguns?

If they take it the ruling will be middle of the road… THIS time! They will go for the rest of it after the next 9/11. They have time on their side...

The slow, inevitable erosion… Everything our Founders feared. "They" say "do it for the children." We should. OUR children. Beware the tired old man with a cause. We all have to go sometime. :uhoh:

[Bartholomew Roberts]

My bad, you were referring to the Conference Report on HR3355 where the Assault Weapons ban was added as an amendment to the Omnibus Crime Bill (which was already a massive piece of legislation) in the Senate by Feinstein (the original bill Dingell voted against having died on the Senate calendar after passing the House).

You are right, Dingell did vote for it as did most (but not all) Democrats and several Republicans. However, Dingell was hardly a critical vote since that bill passed by 235-195 on 8/21/94.

[jimpeel]

Why does the word "impeachment" keep sticking in my mind. This is the epitome of the activist judge who is not even relying on our own Constitution to formulate -- and I do mean formulate -- the rulings that affect this country and will for years to come.

I am going to submit this to my Senators for consideration and, if I can, I will get this woman, and any other justices who joined her on these decisions, impeached.

[SkunkApe]

Brett Belmore has it right. John Dingell voted for THE 1994 Crime Bill, which included the the Assault Weapons Ban, which expires next year. That bill passed the house by one vote. Dingell could have stopped it. The vote was 216-214, in favor. This vote was on 5/4/94.

http://the-tech.mit.edu/V114/N26/ban.26w.html

Dingell was previously "A" rated by the NRA, and included on Sarah Brady's "Dirty Dozen" list. He vigourously fought the inclusion of the AWB in the Crime Bill, but failed. It is generally believed that Dingell, a Democrat, voted for the final bill to save his president, Bill Clinton. Clinton badly needed a big political win at that point in his term.

After the Crime Bill vote, the NRA didn't rate Dingell, but posted a phone number to call for info. I called.

[alan]

JimPeel:

Re your reference to impeachment of Supreme Court Justices who might rule to uncercut or destroy "constitutionally guaranteed rights", would that be grounds for such action. After all, they merely violated their oath of office, something that congress ctritters have been doing for one hell of a long time.

[MAKOwner]

What the heck we going to do when they screw us over bigtime? Storm the Court and hang em high? Don't see it happening, I'm kinda torn on whether I want them to hear it or not.

[publius]

I hope they hear the case. I figure we've got far more to gain than we do to lose. As it stands now, the 2nd is like a gun that's locked in a vault, and no one has the key. Yeah, it's in there, but it doesn't do a whole lot of good if you need it, does it?

So, let's break open the vault. We might find that the gun doesn't work. Oh well. It didn't work too well behind that lock, either.

At least we'll know where we stand.

I'm amused by those who feel it's a given that W would appoint pro-gun judges. Any of you check his position on the mean-looking weapons ban? He's been a supporter since the campaign trail, and still says he'd sign a renewal.

[jimpeel]

The problem isn't that they have merely violated their oath of office. What they have done is to make the Supreme Law of the Land subserviant to international law in the absence of a treaty.

[Billll]

The NRA seems like the French Army: Good to know they're in the fight, but more important to know on whose side.
:scrutiny:

[alan]

JimPeel:

Re your "The problem isn't that they have merely violated their oath of office. What they have done is to make the Supreme Law of the Land subserviant to international law in the absence of a treaty", we seem to be saying about the same thing.

[Gordon Fink]

I’m amused by those who feel it’s a given that W would appoint pro-gun judges. Any of you check his position on the mean-looking weapons ban? He’s been a supporter since the campaign trail, and still says he’d sign a renewal.

Shh! Don’t you know it’s all just a clever trick to fool the Democrats?

~G. Fink :rolleyes:

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Brett Belmore has it right. John Dingell voted for THE 1994 Crime Bill, which included the the Assault Weapons Ban, which expires next year.

Yes, he does have it right and up until this point, so do you.

That bill passed the house by one vote. Dingell could have stopped it. The vote was 216-214, in favor. This vote was on 5/4/94.

Now you are confused. Look at the Dingell's votes on Vote Smart ( http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_key...can_id=H1990103 ). On the 5/5/94 vote to pass the Assault Weapons Ban (HR 4296) in the House, Dingell voted AGAINST the ban. The ban still passed 216-214 in the House but went on to die on the Senate calendar as Senator Feinstein amended the Omnibus Crime Bill (HR 3355) to include the ban.

The amended OCB went back to a House/Senate Conference and after voting for restoring the OCB to its original pre-1994 form on 8/11/94, Dingell voted to pass the amended version on 8/21/94. The vote to pass the amended version of the OCB with the Assault Weapons Ban included passed the House by 235 to 195 - so Dingell's vote made no difference.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=159&can_id=H1990103

[Kharn]

Whoops, my previous post appears to be in error.

It is not the Supreme Court's response that is due by 8/7/03, it is Lockyer's response to the Cert petition that is due by tomorrow (even though he has informed the court he intends to file no response). Some time after that day passes (appears to be about 2-3 weeks), it will be distributed for conference and then another two to three weeks will pass before the conference occurs. So it'll more likely be September before we get a decision on the Cert petition.

Kharn

[Sam Adams]

I’m amused by those who feel it’s a given that W would appoint pro-gun judges. Any of you check his position on the mean-looking weapons ban? He’s been a supporter since the campaign trail, and still says he’d sign a renewal.

I voted for Bush, and would do so again (all of the Dims, in or out of the Presidential race at this moment, will actively try to reduce/eliminate our RKBA). However, I am like many on THR and elsewhere upset with a lot of the things that he's done - he's really NOT a conservative. I am also not terribly hopeful that he will be appointing a Scalia- or Thomas-type to the USSC.

That all being said, Bush said on the campaign trail and since ONLY that he would sign a renewal of the existing ban. Now, I don't like that one bit...BUT Bush is nothing if not careful with his words when he makes policy pronouncements like that. The 2 House and 2 Senate bills that are out there go either beyond or FAR beyond the original ban. This gives Bush an out, IF he wants to use it. He DOES have a choice...but I personally don't think that he'll make the right one, not given his record on "conservative" issues so far. He has turned out to be a consummate politician, which is to say two-faced (though still better than all present realistic alternatives). My biggest fear is that there'll be a USSC nomination sometime in the next year, and Bush will trade away our rights for the "mild" version of the renewal (which, of course, makes the ban both broader and permanent - so much for "mild") in exchange for votes on the nomination.

Our best hope is in the House - keep those letters and phone calls coming. That, and pray for the health of all of the Justices, at least until the AWB is dead.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd be more hopeful about him using that "out", if he had vetoed anything at all. More than half way through his first term, ZERO VETOS. Even of things he vowed to veto, like that campaign finance disaster.

This dude doesn't veto ANYTHING. It's all up to Congress on this.

[alan]

Bartholomew Roberts noted that:

"The amended OCB went back to a House/Senate Conference and after voting for restoring the OCB to its original pre-1994 form on 8/11/94, Dingell voted to pass the amended version on 8/21/94. The vote to pass the amended version of the OCB with the Assault Weapons Ban included passed the House by 235 to 195 - so Dingell's vote made no difference."

In-so-far as Congressman did vote for legislation containing the AW Ban, from where I sit, which is not in Michigan, it does make a difference. By the way, Dingell remains, "better than some", perhaps.

[Kharn]

Sorry for bringing this back from the dead, but the Supreme Court website for the case lists the NRA as having filed its brief on 8/7/03 (they're a little slow updating the website it seems): http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/03-51.htm

So far, the following groups have filed briefs:
Pink Pistols
Women Against Gun Control
JPFO
SAS
NRA

Anyone know where we might find any of these briefs online?

Kharn

[MicroBalrog]

Anybody know what Lockyer's response was?

[Kharn]

Micro: He didnt file one.

Kharn

[MicroBalrog]

And what does that mean for us?:confused:

[Jim March]

Lockyer's lack of response means they're not opposing the USSC hearing the case.

The odds of this baby being heard went up even further.

Does anybody have a link to the NRA Amicus? Or the others?

[alan]

Kharn:

I clicked on the link you provided: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/03-51.htm.

Found there all sorts of data, including a lisdting of who had breifed The Court.

Fair enough, but how does one bring up any particular brief?

[Kharn]

Alan: Dunno, thats the big mystery. Usually smaller groups that submit a brief put them up on their webpage, but the bigger groups (like the NRA) typically dont.

Kharn

[WAGCEVP]

www.wagc.com


Don't use netscape, you wont be able to see it :)

[WAGCEVP]

Dear Gary:

I received this from Gordon Todd at Cooper & Kirk. You might like to forward it to everyone since I am sure they would be interested in what the NRA filed with the Supreme Court.

Yours For The Second Amendment
Howard J. Fezell
www.SecondAmendment.net



================

I got it in PDF form if anybody wants ir forwarded to them...

[alan]

WAGCEVP:

Thank you for the links and material.