[LawDog]

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/Halbrook.asp

Anyone devolving to personal attacks on this one is gone.

Try me. Please. :fire:

LawDog

[Savage]

I have been reading THR for a long time but never posted before. But after reading the junk about Mr. Halbrook, I decided to investigate for myself.

I read EVERYTHING, on EVERY site, that I could find on the subject and found an actual response written by Mr. Halbrook himself. After you read this, I'm sure that you will see that there is a solid plan in place and the NRA/Halbrook are doing the right thing - for the right reasons.

http://www.calgunlaws.com/article-374.html

HALBROOK RESPONDS TO KABA CRITICISM

The debate over which which case is better for the United States Supreme Court has led THE Keep and Bear Arms (KABA) website to publicly criticize NRA attorney Stephen Halbrook, stating that he "appears not only unprepared to effectively argue a Second Amendment case, but ready to give up the farm - to register handguns and call it 'reasonable' - when he gets his day in court."

CalGunLaws.com obtained a copy of Mr. Halbrook's response to the KABA's accusations. Mr. Halbrooks response details why a step by step approach is better and more likely to accomplish it's goal then a wholesale attack on the system.




RESPONSE BY STEPHEN HALBROOK:

Handguns are absolutely banned in the District of Columbia. Before 1976, citizens could possess registered handguns. D.C. law required all firearms to be registered, but that year a law was passed prohibiting the registration of handguns, thereby completely banning them. Our lawsuit, Seegars v. Ashcroft, seeks to allow D.C. residents once again lawfully to possess handguns.

Our clients actually live in the District of Columbia and are confronted by criminals of all kinds in their neighborhoods. For them, it would be major progress to be able to keep a handgun in the home, even if it must be registered. Arm-chair critics may wish to litigate every gun control law on the books in one case, but it's not realistic litigation strategy.

Our strategy is a narrowly-focused effort to encourage the court to recognize the Second Amendment as an individual right and to declare the D.C. handgun ban unconstitutional, so that residents who are daily threatened by criminal violence may keep handguns in their homes to defend themselves. To a defenseless people, the ability merely to possess a handgun would be a giant step forward. But it's just the first step. If we can persuade the court to invalidate the gun ban, the next logical step will be attacking the registration of firearms as a violation of the Second Amendment.

This strategy is similar to that used by the NAACP in the decades leading up to the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954. They didn't go into court trying to overturn all Jim Crow laws at once, and instead picked one specific blatantly offensive part of the law for each case that actually had a chance to be struck down, and then they used that decision in subsequent cases to bolster further arguments.

NRA supports this litigation as part of a broader strategy to restore Second Amendment rights to D.C. citizens. Bills have been introduced in both the Senate and the House to repeal not just the handgun ban, but also the requirement that all firearms be registered. The goal is the complete restoration of Second Amendment rights, and NRA will continue vigorously to pursue this objective in the courts and in the Congress.


Stephen P. Halbrook
Attorney at Law
10560 Main St., Suite 404
Fairfax, VA 22030
Tel. (703) 352-7276
Fax (703) 359-0938
Email: protell@aol.com
Website: www.stephenhalbrook.com



For more information on this topic visit:
THE SILVEIRA DEBATE, http://www.calgunlaws.com/modules.php?name=NukeNews&file=article&sid=336

SILVEIRA: SECOND AMENDMENT SUICIDE, http://www.calgunlaws.com/modules.php?name=NukeNews&file=article&sid=338

SUPREME COURT REQUESTS RESPONSE IN SILVEIRA, http://www.calgunlaws.com/article-287.html

THE SILVEIRA THREAT, http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200309230925.asp

[tyme]

Need both types. Incrementalists to gain back freedoms slowly, sledgehammer types to gain them back quickly in the off chance the SCOTUS or a circuit court bought a clue recently (5th Circuit - Emerson). But will incrementalists, left to themselves, move forward or be dragged backwards? Even being dragged backwards might be better than a world without any pro-RKBA forces, but is still unacceptable as a long-term strategy.

I'm not convinced of the relevance of the Civil Rights movement. I think there are some good arguments that it was/(is) fundamentally different than the movement to reverse erosion of the RKBA.

[Brian Dale]

But will incrementalists, left to themselves, move forward or be dragged backwards? Doesn't matter. The point is that we not leave all of the fight on their shoulders. Join them, or grab a sledgehammer and help out with that part of it. I think there are some good arguments that it was/(is) fundamentally different etc. I don't follow your reference here, tyme. Examples, please?

I know that I couldn't do Mr. Halbrook's job. Good statement of what his goals are, Savage, and welcome to THR! That's a very impressive first post.

[Frohickey]

Halbrook mentions trying to do it incrementally...
But it's just the first step. If we can persuade the court to invalidate the gun ban, the next logical step will be attacking the registration of firearms as a violation of the Second Amendment.

But shouldn't you be consistent. If he wins, and then goes on to attacking the registration, wouldn't his words be used against him later on? :confused:

[Preacherman]

Frohickey, I don't think so. After all, he's not speaking in favor of registration as such: he's asking for a closed register to be re-opened, and advancing arguments as to why this should happen. The next step (arguing against the register itself) isn't affected by opening an existing register, so his arguments in the first case should not have any bearing (or even a relationship to) those in the second case.

[Boats]

Personally, after reading both of the NRA/KABA court threads, they seem to have primarily afforded an opportunity for many people to spout off on something they demonstrably know nothing about--litigating.

It has been rather like witnessing two doofuses at the end of bar on the wrong side of the tracks trying to discuss the finer points of quantum mechanics.

No, litigating is not as tough as theoretical physics, but the way some people here go on about lawyering you'd be forgiven for thinking it might be, just watch as so many ill-informed opinions fly about. Some here would be well-advised to stick with their shopworn attorney bashing because once off that well-thumbed script, they're obviously adrift without a compass and out of sight of land.

For continued hilarity, perhaps any medical professionals on this board could ask the know-it-alls to go on about the best way to surgically remove a bullet from one's chest cavity. A lack of qualifications and/or knowledge has never stopped them from commenting on courtroom practice and procedure, why should a similar lack of a medical background stop them from holding forth on medicine?

[hammer4nc]

It has been rather like witnessing two doofuses at the end of bar on the wrong side of the tracks trying to discuss the finer points of quantum mechanics.

No, the core issue has two highly respected lawyers (Hallbrook and Lucas) issuing polar opposite opinions on the effectiveness of pleadings before the court. Two legal professionals with such divergent views would seem to indicate the issue is far from slam-dunk settled.

While one may dismiss the opinions of THR members, one side or the other, as untrained prattle, the quantum physics and thoracic surgery analogs are rather weak. Here's why: While physics and surgery follow natural laws that the average person would never be exposed to, legal issues can (or should be) reduced to easily understood and explainable arguments. If the legal mechanics override the core issues, something is seriously wrong.

I reject the assertion that the core issues cannot be understood by non-lawyers. In this case, Halbrook's pragmatic approach may or may not come back to bite him (and by extension bite every gun owner in the country, should national registration become the legal precedent). The issue will be decided by judges, lawyers, and lobbyists who are no smarter, or possess higher morals, than the average doofus. So, the case merits our attention and discussion.

[Thumper]

Look, by nature, I'm a sledgehammer type, but I had to rethink this one.

The sledgehammer types have a real good chance of hurting us badly with Silveira.

We didn't lose our rights overnight. We won't get em back immediately, either. For those who haven't been around long enough to follow the fight, we've been gaining remarkable ground since '94.

Silveira case scares the willies out of me.

[0007]

Lawdog - time for another visit to "The Lawdog Files"... :D

[Boats]

I reject the assertion that the core issues cannot be understood by non-lawyers.

The threads in this forum of late are exacting proof that the core issues are not completely understood by non-lawyers.

The "core issues," as such, are inextricably linked with the rigorous requirements of the techinical rules and "legal mechanics" of the law and the venue in which the issue is being contested. The legal rules at play in the NRA case are not as abtruse or immutable as higher mathematics, but they are in play nonetheless, and the discussion of the interplay between the rules and the core issues is highly deficient in these threads. Where to begin? A discussion of statutory construction? A primer on stare decisis? Originalism versus other methods of constitutional interpretation? The nature of binding versus persuasive precedent? The deference paid to seperation of powers when arguing against the constitutionality of a law? The difference in weight and importance between written filings or briefs and oral arguments in non jury proceedings?

Reasonable people can disagree over the merits of the overarching strategy of the NRA case helmed by Halbrook and I take no issue with anyone going on about the wisdom of certain approaches. What is harder to take is all of the lay opinion about the legal ramifications of Halbrook's approach. Most, if not all, of these opinions are so off the mark as to be something just short of true legal comedy. What is especially precious about many of the same people blasting Halbrook for flirting with the setting of a "dangerous precedent" of "gun registration" that could go "nationwide," is that many of these self-styled legal eagles do not, cannot, or will not, acknowledge that their approach in Silviera is more realistically open to the same style of criticisms, and in fact is closer to possibly setting a poor national rule of law via SCOTUS rejection of a decent 2A interpretation and application, one that says one may only have "assault weapons" at the sufferance of the government. Silviera going awry before the narrowly divided SCOTUS is a far more real danger for bad nationwide precedent than anything Halbrook is or is not doing that will only remotely at worst result in persuasive precedent in any other judicial jurisdiction.

A wise woman once told me to write only of what I know about. More people should take her advice.

[Thumper]

Boats' post deserved a bump.

[Wildalaska]

What concerns me about the whole thing is the evident commercial nature of KABA and Mr. Lucas involvement..

Ive raised these questions before...

[Thumper]

More on Lucas?

[Tempest]

Want to know about Roy Lucas? Here you go.

KOPEL CLUELESS:
Silveira Lawsuit Attacker is Shooting Blanks
by Roy Lucas
http://KeepAndBearArms.com/Silveira/kopel.asp

That'll tell you more about Mr. Lucas than anyone around here apparently knows.

This is a thorough and astute rebuttal to Mr. Kopel's obvious attack piece.

As to some alleged "commercial nature" of KABA, that's funny and very "Kopelesque."

KABA has done something in the middle of raising funds for the Silveira lawsuit you've never seen any other gun rights organization do. They've shown exactly what has been raised and spent on the case. http://KeepAndBearArms.com/Silveira/funds_status.asp

[feedthehogs]

evident commercial nature of KABA

Funny, every gun show I'm hawking the NRA merchandise and memberships.
I think they have also killed more trees than publishers clearinghouse soliciting money.

It seems all the pro-2nd amendment groups have their own problems and issues.

Not a one is perfect.
If they would join forces....... but then egos and attitudes get in the way.

Read somewhere about divided we fall.

[Thumper]

edited

[Wildalaska]

$52000 for legal reasearch.......

Nuff said...Im stayin out of this one...

WildbyebyeAlaska

[Tempest]

Why do you KABA people keep posting the same angry attacks in multiple threads, Tempest (nicki)?

What you call an attack is actually a reply to an attack that was published on this website. It's published in one thread to answer a question as to Mr. Roy Lucas' background. It's the theme of another thread, to address the broader issues covered therein. Thank you for asking, so we could clear up your concern.

$52000 for legal reasearch....... While Mr. Halbrook demonstrated how woefully unprepared he was for the Seegars hearing, Mr. Lucas has actually done TONS of research and invested months of his time in ensuring Silveira is a success. Why don't you ask Mr. Halbrook or Mr. Michel how much they receive from the NRA for the substandard job they are doing?

Also note that NRA Foundation's published records show that Mr. Kopel's "In Dependence Institute" received over $460,000 between 1998 and 2001. That's far more than KABA has EVER raised from the grassroots. Questioning money should have you questioning Mr. Kopel's objectivity in this matter.

[Thumper]

Okay, nicki, I'll bite...

Again, which sitting SCOTUS Justices, by name, do you think will go with us on Silveira?

[Oleg Volk]

It is my impression that we are talking about the difference in approaches. I really don't think that KABA's allegiance to our cause should be in question.

[Thumper]

I hope you're right, Oleg.

My opinion is that they're doing more harm than good.

We'll see after Silveira.

[rock jock]

What are the odds in Vegas on either case?

[Tamara]

Y'know, if some folks put half as much energy into the fight as they did into their chest-thumping, mud-slingin' editorials about why they're the real RKBA warriors and everyone else sucked, we'd've had NFA '34 repealed ten years ago... :scrutiny:

[4570Rick]

Tamara

Truer words were never spoken.
;)

[FPrice]

In the previous Halbrook thread I posted that I had emailed Mr. Halbrook and asked for his interpretation of the strategy being employed in the District of Columbia case, Seegars v. Ashcroft. Below is his response.

"Dear Mr. Price,

Thanks for your message. You may post the following explanation. Best regards.

Handguns are absolutely banned in the District of Columbia. Before 1976, citizens could possess registered handguns. D.C. law required all firearms to be registered, but that year a law was passed prohibiting the registration of handguns, thereby completely banning them. Our lawsuit, Seegars v. Ashcroft, seeks to allow D.C. residents once again lawfully to possess handguns.
Our clients actually live in the District of Columbia and are confronted by criminals of all kinds in their neighborhoods. For them, it would be major progress to be able to keep a handgun in the home, even if it must be registered. Arm-chair critics may wish to litigate every gun control law on the books in one case, but it's not realistic litigation strategy.
Our strategy is a narrowly-focused effort to encourage the court to recognize the Second Amendment as an individual right and to declare the D.C. handgun ban unconstitutional, so that residents who are daily threatened by criminal violence may keep handguns in their homes to defend themselves. To a defenseless people, the ability merely to possess a handgun would be a giant step forward. But it's just the first step. If we can persuade the court to invalidate the gun ban, the next logical step will be attacking the registration of firearms as a violation of the Second Amendment.
This strategy is similar to that used by the NAACP in the decades leading up to the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954. They didn't go into court trying to overturn all Jim Crow laws at once, and instead picked one specific blatantly offensive part of the law for each case that actually had a chance to be struck down, and then they used that decision in subsequent cases to bolster further arguments.
NRA supports this litigation as part of a broader strategy to restore Second Amendment rights to D.C. citizens. Bills have been introduced in both the Senate and the House to repeal not just the handgun ban, but also the requirement that all firearms be registered. The goal is the complete restoration of Second Amendment rights, and NRA will continue vigorously to pursue this objective in the courts and in the Congress

Stephen P. Halbrook
Attorney at Law

[Preacherman]

Thanks, FPrice! Nice of Mr. Halbrook to take the trouble to respond.

[Wildalaska]

BYOB???

Yeah baby...I gots a bottle of Mehkong Whiskey if anyone is man (or wymyn) enuf...


WildstillpukinfromitAlaska

[FPrice]

"It is my impression that we are talking about the difference in approaches. I really don't think that KABA's allegiance to our cause should be in question."

It is not KABA'a allegiance which I question so much as it's the tactics of attacking organizations and people on your own side and claiming that they are working with the very people we are all working against. It seems as if they spend as much time on this board attacking the NRA as they do developing strategy to defeat anti-gun legislation.

Mr. Halbrook on the other hand refrains from attacking other groups and instead concentrates on a strategy to get back to where we should be.