[Tempest]

http://keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/kopel.asp

Editor's Note: Over three weeks ago, NationalReview.com allowed their gun writer to smear the true Second Amendment lawsuit we are funding -- with misinformation and personal smears on the attorney, plaintiffs and every last person who has helped fund the case -- long after such editorials could possibly serve any useful purpose. The smear editorials were released just one week before the Supreme Court was set to have a Conference on the case. NRO's Editor repeatedly assured us that they would run our reply, then suddenly backed out under the flimsiest of excuses. Details here: National Review Online: Accomplice in David Kopel Smear Job. Suppresses Rebuttal to Smear. What follows is the reply NRO is afraid to publish even though they repeatedly said they would. Kopel's groundless and petty attack on Silveira, on Gary Gorski and those involved in this case needs rebuttal. Apparently NRO, which published both attack pieces, was too cowardly to run a reply. Apparently objectivity is not their strong suit.

Here is Mr. Lucas' rebuttal. I would hope people here would give it a thorough read and consider his arguments objectively.

[Thumper]

All sorts of criminals, Nazis, and convicted murderers have won cases protecting their constitutional rights in the Supreme Court: Miranda,[26] Escobedo, Mapp, and many more. The gun guys, Mr. Kopel included, have had little imagination and courage in initiating creative Second Amendment test cases.

Good call...equate "us" with criminals, Nazis and convicted murderers.

Freudian slip? Isn't this the same guy who helped Gorski with that ficticious Hitler quote?

Sarah Brady is probably jumping for joy about the Kopel piece in NRO to which I am responding.

No, Sarah's jumping for joy at the money that Angel et al are successfully pulling from the 2nd Amendment fight.

How much money, if any, did Angel make, personally, from KABA this year, nicki?

Which sitting judges, by name, can you guarantee will go with us on Silveira? Which ones do you think are 50/50?

[Tempest]

Good call...equate "us" with criminals, Nazis and convicted murderers. Are you really that comprehension-challenged, Thumper, or are you just that biased? Mr. Lucas in no way, shape or form compared "us" to Nazis and criminals. What he accurately said was that all of them got their cases heard, and ergo, the clean, law-abiding Silveira should as well.

No, Sarah's jumping for joy at the money that Angel et al are successfully pulling from the 2nd Amendment fight. Really? So you're saying a case, which lists sound accounting and is seeking to secure an individual right to keep and bear arms is pulling money from the Second Amendment fight?

How much money, if any, did Angel make, personally, from KABA this year, nicki? The obvious baiting and personal insult aside, far less than it takes to pay his and KABA's bills. He's been working on the side to make ends meet, while Wayne LaPierre gets nearly half a million. Any other questions?

Now, Thumper, instead of launching unwarranted and disgusting attacks at Angel, why don't you focus on the rebuttal -- specifically the challenges Mr. Lucas makes to Mr. Kopel's assertions. I believe that was what LawDog requested on the other thread.

[GSB]

Hard for me to get past the words "smear" and "cowardly". Does not inspire confidence that we're dealing with adults engaged in adult debate here.

[Thumper]

You're transparent, troll...I'm out.

Good luck with the vitriol.

[Tempest]

You're transparent, troll...I'm out. Your lack of civil, coherent reply is duly noted. Have a nice night.

Hard for me to get past the words "smear" and "cowardly". Does not inspire confidence that we're dealing with adults engaged in adult debate here. The reason I say this attack is cowardly, is because it was perpetrated without provocation, on a team that is trying to do nothing more than restore our rights. It was a hit and run. As for "smear" -- what do you call an attack that is misleading and biased?

[2dogs]

Good call...equate "us" with criminals, Nazis and convicted murderers.

With all due respect, I believe that you misread this- he is doing no such thing.:scrutiny:

and Mr. Lucas' article is quite compelling IMHO.

Give more money.:):cool:

[Thumper]

With all due respect, I believe that you misread this- he is doing no such thing.
2dogs...whether conscious or not, asking why "all sorts of criminals" can be heard and we can't isn't a comparison I'm comfortable with.

I used to be a big fan of KABA, but the devisiveness they've engendered has more than turned me off.

They've gotten so loud in their attacks on the NRA (seems the primary purpose of the website these days) that I question their motives.

[Preacherman]

Thumper, I think that a certain diversity of approach within the pro-RKBA forces is entirely proper, and actually very useful. There will always be those who are swayed by, or who will support, a particular cause: and although we all hold in common our wish to defend the 2A, there are some who get very emotional about it, some who are very logical in their approach, and some who combine both elements in their particular perspective. I have absolutely no problem with this.

Where I do have a MAJOR problem is when a group spends most of its time attacking other groups who are trying to achieve the same end. This is not confined to the RKBA "alliance", of course: one of the more hysterical examples may be viewed at www.democraticunderground.com, which I'm sure most mainstream Democrats wish would expire at midnight and never return! :D Another example would be the Log Cabin Republicans, who certainly don't garner much favor within the more conservative membership of their party.

I think that KABA has done magnificent work in publicizing the attacks against the RKBA, and in preparing defences for this right. I seriously question the wisdom of some of their courses of action (e.g. the Silviera case), but I emphatically support their right to bring this action, and pursue it to whatever conclusion it accomplishes. If it's good for RKBA overall, that's great, and KABA will have justifiably earned our gratitude and future support. If it backfires, equally, KABA will have earned our censure.

Unfortunately, KABA's position appears to be (note that I say APPEARS: it's the impression that I gain from the majority of the material on their Web site and their posts here - Tempest/Nicki, if I'm wrong, please feel free to inform us) that if you aren't embracing and supporting their chosen causes and approaches to the problem(s), you're a wimp on 2A issues. They spend an awful lot of time attacking the NRA and others. I find this profoundly disturbing - why attack someone who is basically on your side anyway??? It's the same as if a pastor, such as myself, attacks another pastor from another denomination, simply because he/she doesn't hold the same theology as I - even though both of us are Christians, and are supposed to be spreading the Gospel!

I do wish we could put as much energy into fighting attacks on the 2A as we do into fighting amongst ourselves in the RKBA camp...

:banghead: :fire: :mad: :rolleyes:

[Thumper]

Well, thank you for that, Parson... :-D

WatchDog...I'm asking you, not as an attack, but because I truly want to know your opinion...How many sitting Justices do you think Silveira can garner for our side?

Which ones?

I've heard Silveira supporters endorsing Ginsberg...do you share that opinion?

Actually, I guess we're all Silveira supporters now, whether we like it or not.

By the way, contrary to Lucas' statement, I had understood that the NRA had filed a very well written amicus recently. Is that correct?

[Tempest]

Unfortunately, KABA's position appears to be (note that I say APPEARS: it's the impression that I gain from the majority of the material on their Web site and their posts here - Tempest/Nicki, if I'm wrong, please feel free to inform us) that if you aren't embracing and supporting their chosen causes and approaches to the problem(s), you're a wimp on 2A issues. They spend an awful lot of time attacking the NRA and others. I find this profoundly disturbing - why attack someone who is basically on your side anyway??? It's the same as if a pastor, such as myself, attacks another pastor from another denomination, simply because he/she doesn't hold the same theology as I - even though both of us are Christians, and are supposed to be spreading the Gospel! Preacherman, I appreciate your positive comments re: KABA, and I feel I need to address the issue above.

First, I'm going to say this: I am still an NRA member, and I was a contributing editor to one of their magazines. I used to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to convince Angel that we were working for the same goal, but the more I read of the NRA and the more I dealt with the internal politics, the more I realized that much of what the NRA does is actually detrimental to our rights.

I do not mind differing approaches to RKBA. What I DO mind is the following:

I mind compromise for the sake of politics. I've done plenty of research into the issue, and I have found I disagree profoundly with the NRA's support of the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Acts. I condemn their support for background checks to exercise a constitutionally protected right. I disagree with their support of Project Safe Neighborhoods and its bastard children.

I minded when I wasn't allowed to cover certain important RKBA events as a writer because, as my editor put it, "it's internal politics." If we are all working for the same thing, then politics aside.

I minded the NRA trying to destroy Silveira and then trying to raise money on the case. It's one thing to disagree with the case. It's one thing to disagree with the approach or question its merits. It's quite another to publicly humiliate the lead attorney and the case's supporters. It's quite another to try and kill it out of the gate. And it's quite another to publicly condemn it, even though it's a Second Amendment case and we should present solid togetherness with regard to such cases.

I mind their consistent support of anti-Second Amendment political candidates.

With all due respect, your comparison of two pastors disagreeing on the approaches to the Gospel is disingenuous. It is not the same. It's one thing to take different approaches to the Gospel. It's quite another to make a deal with the devil while claiming it's all for the good of spreading the Gospel.

I do not hate the NRA. Angel doesn't hate the NRA. And KABA does not exist to bash the NRA. KABA exists as an alternative to those who are sick and tired of NRA compromises. And we would be less than honest if we didn't point outright lies and distortions of supposed "allies" who claim to be fighting for the same thing as we are. Our goal is freedom. Period. Nothing more, and nothing less.

[Tempest]

Please point out where Mr. Lucas says anything negative about the NRA's amicus brief. It was a very good brief - a brief in which Mr. Cooper contradicts Kopel, and Mr. Lucas says as much:

Mr. Kopel touts the skills of Charles Cooper, a fine lawyer from Alabama where I once taught. Interestingly, Mr. Cooper wrote the NRA amicus brief supporting Silveira fully, and he contradicts the lesser Kopel in several ways. For example, Mr. Cooper states in the NRA brief: “[Silveira] Petitioners clearly have Article III standing.” Chuck Michel was wrong on that, by at least 30 years, as is Mr. Kopel. Mr. Michel wasted a lot of our time with his opposition to this clean Second Amendment lawsuit, but the Ninth Circuit totally ignored him in the end.

Charles Cooper further states for the NRA to the Supreme Court:

“Cruikshank and its progeny were decided, however, before the Court incorporated virtually every provision of the Bill of Rights against the States. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 148 (1968). Thus, there is now widespread agreement that Cruikshank is not good law. See Pet. App. 94 (“One point about which we are in agreement with the Fifth Circuit is that Cruikshank and Presser rest on a principle that is now thoroughly discredited.”).”

I agree with Mr. Cooper that Cruikshank should be overruled, and that Kopel should study constitutional history more before he pretends to be authoritative. Mr. Cooper, further in the NRA brief wisely and correctly states:

“...this Court should clarify that United States v. Cruikshank ... which held that the Second Amendment was not incorporated against the States, is no longer good law.”

Charles Cooper for the NRA has that right. Mr. Kopel has it wrong. Why are we not surprised? Because Mr. Kopel has a personal agenda that is intellectually dishonest and certainly very ill-informed — so uninformed that he praises Cooper's ability to lead a Second Amendment charge while disagreeing with Cooper's strategy for getting there, in the very same editorial.

[WatchDog]

Thumper, I've been censored. Until my posts are put back, I'm out.

[AZRickD]

No, Sarah's jumping for joy at the money that Angel et al are successfully pulling from the 2nd Amendment fight.
No. Sarah's sphincter tightens with ever dollar that by-passes NRA and goes to KABA and GOA.

Come to think of it, I do believe it is time to renew my membership to KABA.

I encourage those of you with like mind to do as well.

Rick

[Art Eatman]

Dunno the problem, WatchDog, but the moderators are ignorant of your problem. Email or PM one of us? Me or the Preacherman?

Regards,

Art

[Thumper]

Tempest,

Lucas said:
Given that we are now waiting to learn if the Supreme Court will hear Silveira, one would think that David Kopel and those close to him would be doing many concrete, positive things to ensure an overwhelming success for the Second Amendment. This essay is a plea to them to do so, to join rather than divide. They are categorically not at the present time involved in Silveira and have contributed nothing but negativity to the case.
I understood "Kopel and those close to him" as an NRA ref. Perhaps he was simply referring to the CATO Institute?

Either way, I just got a promotion and a raise; my "good will towards men" factor is too high to argue with anyone right now.

[Tempest]

I'm thinking he was referring to Kopel and Michel, who actively are trying to sabotage us. No, not CATO at all.

Either way, I just got a promotion and a raise; my "good will towards men" factor is too high to argue with anyone right now. Ah! All of a sudden this world is a wonderful place, and you're just not in the mood to debate. Convenient. This after calling me a vitriolic troll. :rolleyes:

Well, congrats on your raise and your promotion. Good night.

[Preacherman]

I found what Watchdog was talking about ... see this thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=44959)!

:D

[Thumper]

No, not CATO at all.

Thanks for clearing that up...being "comprehension[ally]-challenged," I'm just trying to make out the big words.

Hey Art,
moderators are ignorant
I demand you ban yourself for such a blatant attack.

:D

[tyme]

Can't we all please just get along?

[2dogs]

I used to be a big fan of KABA, but the devisiveness they've engendered has more than turned me off.


They've gotten so loud in their attacks on the NRA

I am a member of KABA. I am a member of NRA. The more I read about NRA on KABA the more money I send the latter and the less the former*.

I will remain a member of both.:p




*As long as the NRA criticisms seem fair and not blatant lies to raise KABA funds, which I have not found.

[Thumper]

As long as the NRA criticisms seem fair and not blatant lies to raise KABA funds, which I have not found.

You're right...not blatant lies, just misrepresentations...for instance:

Chuck Michel and the California Rifle and Pistol Association, an NRA affiliate, actually filed a brief on the other side in Silveira, denying that there was standing for citizens to sue.

The italics are KABAs. Now what does that insinuate? NRA filing in order to take your guns, right? But I know, and I'm sure you do too, that the NRA filed to stop the ball because they know Silveira has a very good chance to be disastrous to our cause.

[Tempest]

You're right...not blatant lies, just misrepresentations...for instance:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Michel and the California Rifle and Pistol Association, an NRA affiliate, actually filed a brief on the other side in Silveira, denying that there was standing for citizens to sue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The italics are KABAs. Now what does that insinuate? NRA filing in order to take your guns, right? But I know, and I'm sure you do too, that the NRA filed to stop the ball because they know Silveira has a very good chance to be disastrous to our cause.

Misrepresentations? Do tell where you see anything that Michel or CRPA did that was misrepresented.

Your interpretation of what we were insinuating is YOURS alone.

It couldn't possibly be that the italics were put there to emphasize that Michel filed a brief in opposition to a pure Second Amendment case, could it?

Now, thumper, why don't you tell us which part of that paragraph is misleading in any way. Which part of that paragraph states an untruth in any way shape or form? And which part of that paragraph misrepresents Michel's actions in any way? Point that out for us, won't you? Because I'm finding your interpretation of our "insinuation" laughable at best.

[Thumper]

You've obviously created a devisive line we cant afford. Why?

Maybe you should stop devoting half your efforts to attacking the NRA and more into Silveira.

The majority of Lucas' article can be summed up as "look how good I am and how much the NRA sucks."

Give us substance...unfortunately, the question of whether Silveira should exist is moot. It's out there now, and God help us if things don't go our way.

Again...substance. I'll give you another opportunity: Aside from Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia, who do we have?

[Tempest]

Your failure to answer the questions I asked is duly noted. I'll chalk it up to yet another vacuous accusation with no substance.

Maybe you should stop devoting half your efforts to attacking the NRA and more into Silveira. Would you tell us, oh-all-seeing-one, how much time and effort you believe we have devoted to Silveira. I resent your implication here. This team has spent countless hours developing this case, and we have put everything on the line for it: reputation, time, money. What have you done other than to condemn it, when you are obviously clueless as to its merits? You have no clue about the massive amount of work done in preparation for this, and having to answer senseless attacks from NRA shills day in and day out really detracts from this mission.

Has the NRA contributed a single brass nickel to ensure this case is a success, after filing a damn good amicus brief? No. They tried to ensure its failure from the start and then tried to raise money from it. We have done a lot with this case, with the help of a relatively small number of people who are devoted to the Second Amendment, and we are proud of this case, because it has merit.

The majority of Lucas' article can be summed up as "look how good I am and how much the NRA sucks." Roy Lucas' article refutes every single one of Dave Kopel's misleading attacks. Who attacked whose case, thumper? And pray-tell -- were we not supposed to answer an obviously transparent attack in a public forum on a case that we are completely devoted to and have spent countless hours developing and ensuring its viability? Now, why don't you point me to the parts you believe state "I'm good and the NRA sucks," remembering, of course, that Kopel's attack included the following:

...if cert is granted in Silveira, the lead attorney would not be Stephen Halbrook, who has a 3-0 record on gun cases in the Supreme Court. Nor would the lawyer be Charles Cooper, the former Department of Justice official who helped win the Emerson case. And then tell me who attacked whom.

Give us substance...unfortunately, the question of whether Silveira should exist is moot. It's out there now, and God help us if things don't go our way. Roy gave you substance. Unfortunately you are too stubborn to really examine it.

And by the way, you are correct - the question of whether or not Silveira should exist is moot. It is out there, this team has prepared one hell of a case, and we have every confidence in victory. We have put our reputations and our money on the line for this. Do you really think any of us take it lightly? It's there and it will be heard. So what possible excuse can there be for trying to sabotage this case at this stage in the game, huh?

[Thumper]

I'll chalk it up to yet another vacuous accusation with no substance.
Vacuous, huh? Where's WatchDog when you need him. :rolleyes:

Emphasizing "other side" with italics speaks for itself. The KABA headlines speak for themselves. Res ipsa loquitur, quod erat demonstrandum.

One last time, nicki...(this is 5 times):

Which Justices do you expect to go with us? No attack...I really want to know.

[Tempest]

Vacuous, huh? Where's WatchDog when you need him. Gee, you make offensive accusations, refuse to back them up, and I'm supposed to bend over for you? Sorry, thumper, you just ain't that attractive. :rolleyes:

Emphasizing "other side" with italics speaks for itself. The KABA headlines speak for themselves. Oh, it does, does it? Again I ask you: could it POSSIBLY be that the emphasis was placed there to underline the fact that the NRA filed an amicus AGAINST a Second Amendment case?

Which Justices do you expect to go with us? No attack...I really want to know. If you really want to know, thumper, do some research and find out. The fact that you know nothing about the merits of this case makes every last one of your smarmy attacks just that.

On the other hand, you have made offensive allegations, and I've posed questions demanding your substantiations to the above.

Tell us how much time you know our team has spent on Silveira, since you claim half our efforts go to attacking the NRA.

Tell us what you have done, other than attack us, that justifies the above allegation.

Tell us what part of Mr. Lucas' reply to Mr. Kopel's unwarranted attack is false or unsound.

Show us proof of your claim that Mr. Lucas' article is nothing more than "Look how good I am and how much the NRA sucks."

Show me in this paragraph: Chuck Michel and the California Rifle and Pistol Association, an NRA affiliate, actually filed a brief on the other side in Silveira, denying that there was standing for citizens to sue. where are there MISREPRESENTATIONS? Not your opinion of what the insinuation was, because it's YOURS alone, but the actual MISREPRESENTATIONS.

Otherwise, I stand by my assessment of your attacks as vacuous. Have a nice afternoon.

[Tempest]

There have been so many unsubstantiated allegations and unanswered questions on this thread, I forgot to ask the most important question that Thumper failed to answer:

Silveira is there, as you pointed out, and we firmly believe it will be heard. So what possible excuse can there be for trying to sabotage this case at this stage in the game?

[madmike]

Which Justices do you expect to go with us? No attack...I really want to know

All available by a quick web search. I'm not going to speak for them.

The question is, are we going to get a friendlier court in four years? Twenty? Fifty? A hundred?

Meantime, the NRA DID support NFA, DID support GCA, DOES support background checks, DOES support registration, backdoored GA's right to carry from Vermont Style to Shall Issue, DID oppose Silveira from the start (and it was flawed, but active opposition is a bad thing from a PR POV, and makes it seem as if no one is allowed to speak except them), DID support CT's "take your guns if anyone says you might be a danger" law (which requires no medical exam to determine mental state), DOES support "enforcing the laws on the books," has said it has no problem with registration...

Yeah, I'm still a member until my card gets to them, but the NRA serves only one, very valuable function anymore.

It's the prison bitch.

The media rants about "the NRA and the powerful gun lobby (tm)," and lets the rest of us work.

Then, when activists who belong to the NRA accomplish things without NRA $$$, they chant about how, "NRA members in yourstate successfully blahblah."

Want to bet they claim credit when Silveira wins?

And no, Silveira isn't guaranteed, even though it's very good. There's no guarantees in court. But as it stands, there IS no court recognized RKBA officially. It's catch as catch can. So there's nothing to lose. CA says you have no such right, NY, IL, CT, NJ, MA...how many others are heading that way?

2A isn't taught in law school now. It's never been really taught. Do you imagine it will be better in 50 years? "Oh, the 2nd Amendment means the states can have a militia. That was decided a long time ago," I've had numerous lawyers tell me. "You're in the Guard, you can keep your rifle in the armory," smirk.

Even though it's totally untrue at every level. but THEY DON'T #@^$#& KNOW!

So...who will you get to fight the case? In front of which court? When?

You answer me, please. I'd like to know when the time will be.

[LawDog]

Right.

Obviously some people are not checking their Private Messages.

I suggest that you do so now.

This one is closed.

LawDog