Breaking News 2A SCOTUS CHALLENGE!!!

publius

February 11, 2003, 07:38 AM

Unknown Sailor,

Yes, this is the case. It's caused division in more than one area within the gun community.

Gorski appealed to the infamously liberal, frequently overturned U.S. Ninth Circuit Court. The only court that can overturn this Ninth Circuit Court ruling is the U.S. Supreme Court.

As expected, a three-judge panel dismissed all of Gorski’s claims but — unexpectedly — one: the court agreed with Gorski that retired police officers were not “super citizens” who were exempt from the semi-auto ban. Good for Mr. Gorski! Now these retired officers must join us in this fight if they want their freedoms back.

This part caused many otherwise pro-gun cops to oppose Gorski. Their thinking was that they had served the community for years, been trained with firearms, and this was not super-citizen status, but a kind of retirement benefit. I don't agree, but it's not a completely unreasonable position.

The really divisive part is summed up here...

The worst Supreme Court ruling would be that: (1) the Second Amendment — unlike other Amendments in the Bill of Rights — can be ignored by the states, and/or that (2) the Second Amendment — unlike other amendments using the words “ the people” — does not actually refer to “the people” or their individual rights. That would mean the “new” Second Amendment is now shrunken, in effect, to “The right of the states to arm militias cannot be infringed by the federal government”. In practice, this would mean that the federal government (which controls interpretation of the Constitution) and any state government would have the power to ban any firearm it chose to ban, including bolt action or lever-action rifles. This would be quite shocking to every gun owner in America. But it would make it absolutely clear that the Supreme Court will uphold the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment only when it feels like it. What Americans would do about that situation would remain to be seen.

The fear is that what Americans would do about that situation is...drumroll please....live with it. This may sound hard to believe, until you consider that living with it is exactly what we're already doing, which is why this case may be heard by the Supremes.

publius

February 11, 2003, 07:53 AM

By the way, for those who agree with the retired cops and/or with the NRA, or for whatever reason are unhappy about this case, you should read this:

THE BOTTOM LINE:

Mr. Gorski and the plaintiffs are committed to taking Silveira v. Lockyer to the Supreme Court — that decision is out of our hands, and we accept it as reality.

Given that information, your choice now is to either stand on the sidelines and hope for the best, or help Mr. Gorski prepare the best, most complete, most powerful case possible for affirming our individual right to own and use firearms. Help us do the latter by donating right now to the tax-exempt partner in this project, Citizens Of America:

I think I'll go visit the donation page (http://www.citizensofamerica.org/donatemain.htm) and give them some e-gold (http://www.e-gold.com/e-gold.asp?cid=102911) right now.:D

Master Blaster

February 11, 2003, 08:42 AM

Worst Ruling? The worst Supreme Court ruling would be that: (1) the Second Amendment — unlike other Amendments in the Bill of Rights — can be ignored by the states, and/or that (2) the Second Amendment — unlike other amendments using the words “ the people” — does not actually refer to “the people” or their individual rights. That would mean the “new” Second Amendment is now shrunken, in effect, to “The right of the states to arm militias cannot be infringed by the federal government”. In practice, this would mean that the federal government (which controls interpretation of the Constitution) and any state government would have the power to ban any firearm it chose to ban, including bolt action or lever-action rifles. This would be quite shocking to every gun owner in America. But it would make it absolutely clear that the Supreme Court will uphold the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment only when it feels like it. What Americans would do about that situation would remain to be seen.

The worst case is already a fact. Just ask the residents of NY, New Jersey, and CA.

As the current situation exists any state can ban any weapon or class of weapons that they want, and they can restrict anyone they want from owning any firearm at all, or EVEN a BB GUN.

I fail to see a downside to this suit.

I will contribute to the cause and i urge others to do the same.

NRA = No Rights Anymore, I am a member but I fail to see what the NRA is really doing.

dustind

February 11, 2003, 10:44 AM

i think we need to get everyone to jump on this, this could be the biggest gun turning point ever

GhostShooter

February 11, 2003, 12:03 PM

Did I miss something here. They haven't even agreed to hear the case yet. Given the USSC's track record I don't think they will.:scrutiny:

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/2M16.gif

Blackhawk

February 11, 2003, 12:17 PM

Did I miss something here. They haven't even agreed to hear the case yet. Given the USSC's track record I don't think they will.Yes, you did miss something. They're committed and PREPARING to take this thing to the top. There's no assurance that the SCOTUS will hear any case, but the clock starts ticking when the 9CA's decision becomes final, and any writ to the SCOTUS has to be filed within a fixed time after that. Preparation is fundamental to victory in any contest.

Frohickey

February 11, 2003, 12:47 PM

twoblink makes a good point, that if you can only do one thing, you should take a newbie out for a fun day shooting and introduce them to the shooting sports.

But... we humans are capable of multi-tasking.

Walking and chewing gum.
Scanning the area while tactically reloading.
Shouting 'STOP! Drop the knife', while putting two COM shots into the BG.

All of us should have already been introducing newbies to the shooting sports. Thats already a given for me. I think I can dig into the wallet and fish out a $5 or $10. In the long run, all that is, is perhaps lunch at a fast-food restaurant, or two. So its cheap in comparison.

..... :what:

Whataminute!!! $5 or $10 is not cheap. Imagine what would happen if Gary Gorski were successful in arguing the merits of the case to the SCOTUS! Gun control laws would be struck down. Assault weapon bans will be struck down. Standard magazine capacity bans will be struck down. That would mean at least $2000+ worth of new sport-utility weapons! :D

Blackhawk

February 11, 2003, 12:51 PM

Frohickey makes a better point.... :D

MitchSchaft

February 11, 2003, 01:33 PM

I donated some cash.

Russ

February 11, 2003, 02:05 PM

This is probably still years away. The full 9th Ciruit hasn't heard the case yet. It has only been heard by a 3 judge panel. Unless the whole 9th hears it, SCOTUS isn't going to take it. Even if the full 9th does, the SCOTUS may not take it. Even if they do, who knows what the make-up of the court will be 10 years from now.

publius

February 11, 2003, 06:40 PM

Russ is right. My guess is that the SC will refuse to hear the case. It's the path of least resistance. If they take the case, no matter which way they rule, they've just poked a hornet nest. People don't do that unless they really need to, and in this case, they don't need to. They can refuse to hear the case, no boats will be rocked out in the state capitols, millions will continue to live in gun-grabbing states, a few of us will be briefly upset, and life will go on.

Hope I'm wrong, and I did give them some gold just on the off chance that I'm wrong.

Open Carry

February 11, 2003, 08:05 PM

This is the same court that decided US v. Lopez. As far as being years away, Lopez was arrested in 1992 and the SC decided the case in 1995. O'Connor seems to be the weak link that could go against us. Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas should be on our side.

spartacus2002

February 11, 2003, 08:40 PM

Hmmm, what funny timing.

I wrote a letter to the NRA, asking what support (if any) they had provided to Gorski in this case, and what their position was. I got a letter back yesterday from their General Counsel, who basically said "well, this case just isn't the basket in which we want to put the NRA's eggs." and blamed it on the judges. He did say that if it goes to SCOTUS, NRA might file an amicus brief.

I can understand the reluctance to declare EVERY gun case to be THE CASE OF A LIFETIME--IT WILL SHAKE THE WORLD!!!! but I'm not sure I saw the downside for the NRA on this one.

I think (and this is speculation) that the NRA's lack of support is a matter of the NRA's makeup. NRA contains many different constituencies: hunters, sport shooters, serious target shooters -- and the folks who like so-called "assault weapons." Not surprisingly, the latter get looked down on by the duck hunters, precision target shooters, etc. Since this was an assault weapon case, the NRA may have had some disdain for it.

Jeeper

February 11, 2003, 08:43 PM

There is no way in HELL that SCOTUS will take this case. First off only about 2-3% of appeals are ever heard. This issue is way too hot for them to take. IT isnt even the case we want to go to them anyway. We need a more direct case about individual freedom. Even if it was appealed to them and they took it, they could decide the case without saying anything about an individual right.

Pendragon

February 11, 2003, 08:50 PM

Russ is right. My guess is that the SC will refuse to hear the case. It's the path of least resistance. If they take the case, no matter which way they rule, they've just poked a hornet nest. People don't do that unless they really need to, and in this case, they don't need to. They can refuse to hear the case, no boats will be rocked out in the state capitols, millions will continue to live in gun-grabbing states, a few of us will be briefly upset, and life will go on.

The reason SC Justices are lifers is so that they can make rulings without considerin how popular they might be.

Only thing is - they are human and most humans do not like to be unpopular.

Shamaya

February 12, 2003, 01:34 AM

Jeeper said:There is no way in HELL that SCOTUS will take this case. First off only about 2-3% of appeals are ever heard. This issue is way too hot for them to take. IT isnt even the case we want to go to them anyway. We need a more direct case about individual freedom. Even if it was appealed to them and they took it, they could decide the case without saying anything about an individual right."No way in HELL that SCOTUS will take this case" is a gross overstatement implying "impossible." It's indeed a challenge, but it's also quite possible. With Emerson in the 5th Circuit recently standing correctly on RKBA, the opposed circuits issue is definitely in play.

Better yet, you might also want to take a good, close, considered look at the individual whose work we are fortunate enough to be able to utilize in this case. Go here; you can read it in approx. 2 minutes: About Roy Lucas (http://keepandbeararms.com/Lucas/roy.asp).

Re: "too hot for them to take," people said that about the Roe case way back when, too -- and many others.

RE: "We need a more direct case about individual freedom." If an individual being flatly denied the right to keep and bear arms under bans of entire classifications of firearms isn't about individual freedom, I don't know what is.

RE: "Even if it was appealed to them and they took it, they could decide the case without saying anything about an individual right."

You might consider reading the original complaint before making such statements. The entire premise of the complaint sits squarely on the nature of the Second Amendment being an individual right. And the petition for certiorari is going to outshine the original complaint by order of magnitude.

I've had the misfortune of interacting personally with people who've been arrested for violating California's so-called "Assault Weapons" ban. It's not pretty. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is 100% infringed by that "law". Our fight against that law is righteous, just, sound, fair, reasonable and necessary -- millions of people live under the ban; they are individuals; and their freedom is being denied under threat of violent government force and either imprisonment or, if they resist, death.

To those who've supported our efforts, thank you. As we developed a Gameplan on this case, I found myself finally having some excitement about the future of the RPKBA for the first time in too long. The prepared documents for this case will be available for future cases if cert petition is denied -- but we honestly have a shot at getting this case heard, and the legal team is going to prepare the best possible case our side could hope for.

Mike Weber

February 12, 2003, 04:16 AM

I'm with you on this 100% Mr Shamaya. When I first saw this I recognized the Importance of it immediatly and posted it or all the RKBA and shooting sites that I frequent. I would also like to inform you that The Second Amendment Coalition would also like to place our support behind this as well as our media resources. I'm sending you a PM with some contact information to our organization.

publius

February 12, 2003, 06:28 AM

With Emerson in the 5th Circuit recently standing correctly on RKBA, the opposed circuits issue is definitely in play.

Angel is right. This is the main reason I have any hope that SCOTUS will take this case. With 2 circuits flatly disagreeing on such a major issue in the Bill of Rights, it would seem the SC has to step in and resolve the issue. OTOH, government frequently doesn't do things that it would seem they have to do.

Bartholomew Roberts

February 12, 2003, 10:35 AM

This case isn't about the 2nd Amendment at the federal level - it is about the 14th Amendment.

Unless SCOTUS decides to incorporate the Second Amendment, and that would be a pretty big surprise, there is already precedent at the Supreme Court level saying that states are free to infringe on the Second to their heart's content.

The Supreme Court has already recently declined to hear either of two cases concerning the Second (Emerson and another I forget), even though the interpretations (individual and collective) were in conflict with each other. They declined because using either ruling, the same judicial outcome would have occured.

In this case, the Supreme Court can simply point to precedent on incorporation and decline to hear the case - and unless something changes (court makeup) they will.

publius

February 12, 2003, 12:48 PM

You're right about incorporation. That's the boat they don't want to rock.

Not so sure about this case not being about the 2nd. If they took the case, any ruling would have implications for the 2nd.

falconer

February 12, 2003, 01:49 PM

I think incorporation at this point is highly unlikely. If you look at the case history of the SCOTUS incorporating amendments, its very typical that they give a weak ruling that suggests that the state not violate that right, but doesn't necessarily incorporate it.

Weeks vs US created the exclusionary rule to protect federal citizens from 4th amendment violations, but the benefit of the exclusionary rule was not granted state citizens until Mapp vs Ohio.

Bartholomew Roberts

February 12, 2003, 01:51 PM

umm, not exactly. The bill of rights applies to us as federal citizens. We recieved these rights as state citizens through court rulings as per the selective incorporation clause of the 14th.

And what parts of the Second Amendment have been selectively incorporated?

falconer

February 12, 2003, 02:11 PM

2nd has not been incorporated, yet. I edited my post as I noticed your prior post got my point along better than I had worded it (I'm half asleep and did not read all the responses).

Someone ought to inform them that they need to be pursuing this case on 14th grounds, not 2nd. Even if the 2nd is incorporated, its doubtful that it will be as a strong individual right.

Shamaya

February 12, 2003, 09:01 PM

Russ said:It has only been heard by a 3 judge panel. Unless the whole 9th hears it, SCOTUS isn't going to take it.I shared that statement with a man who has been arguing in the Supreme Court and petitioning the Supreme Court for hearings for three decades.

He shared the following:"The notion that the S Ct only hears appeals from en banc decisions is...unresearched, not fact based... MOST of the cases heard by the S Ct are form 3-J decisions. I rarely petitioned for en banc for that reason."That's an excerpt, to remove more colorful language, so as not to unnecessarily offend. No offense is intended at all, Russ -- I've been guilty of playing attorney on the internet myself, so I cannot cast any stones here, lest I break my own glass house. But I do request that you take more care in the future when referring to our efforts to right this country and stop the assaults on our countrymen.

Godspeed.

publius

February 12, 2003, 09:34 PM

Any thoughts about the incorporation issue, Angel?

4v50 Gary

February 12, 2003, 09:44 PM

Nothing to celebrate until the Supremes grant certiorari. Even if they do, we must reserve ourselves until a decision is rendered in our favor.

Makes me glad Bush is at the helm. We won't get any loose and liberal replacements on the Supremes.

Jeeper

February 12, 2003, 09:56 PM

Even if the supreme court would have taken Emerson they could have ruled the case without touching the 2nd in any fashion. The statement in Emerson about the 2nd being an individual right is nothing more than dicta which is essentially meaningless. The concurring opinion in Emerson states this.

The whole idea of incorporation is one of the best chances for the 2nd. WHen incorporation first began the idea of total incorporation of the bill of rights was expressly denounced by SCOTUS. It wasnt until later rulings in the 1960's under the Warren court that most of the BoR was incorporated. The exceptions remain as the 2nd, 3rd and 7th. A good incorporation case is the best shot. The 14th has been expanded during the last 40 years which might give us a chance. Another way might just be under the liberty clause in the 14th by assuming that it is a fundamental right and forgo the 2nd all together.

Shamaya

February 12, 2003, 11:03 PM

Publius said: Any thoughts about the incorporation issue, Angel?I'm assuming you mean the thoughts from our legal team, including our chief legal advisor (http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/lucas/roy.asp). My own thoughts are very unimportant, comparatively speaking.

Here's what I got back when inquiring about how best to respond to people who think "incorporation" is some kind of tough battle once cert is granted:"The Fifth and Ninth Circuits both agree expressly, if those folks would only read the opinions, that the Supreme Court decisions on incorporation reach the Second Amendment and require that Presser v Illinois be ignored, because the Supreme Court would obviously ignore them when the question came up. ... In oral argument I would give that non-issue 30 seconds and the Justices would nod and say that is totally obvious, like sunrise tomorrow, move on. ... Presser was 1886 ... The CAs do not have to follow such ancient cases, when almost all of the other amendments have been absorbed. Adding the 2A under either clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is today a no brainer."FYI, Publius, when I first began dialoguing with this gentleman some weeks back, I thought he was overconfident. Thanks to his patience with my ignorance, I now see that he is the kind of legal genius our side do desperately needs. When it comes to talking law, and especially talking about how to win in 2A's battle in the Supreme Court, I'm barely fit enough to clean his boots. Go look at his record (http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/lucas/roy.asp). Can you find any RKBA heavyweight attorney with those kinds of credentials? If so, show me just one.

Shooter 2.5

February 12, 2003, 11:48 PM

Ask yourself these questions:

Who was the last person to become a Supreme Court Justice?

Would you say that person is pro or anti-gun?

What are the odds we will lose a Second Amendment ruling?

What are the chances an anti-gun Supreme Court Justice may retire in the next couple of years?

What are the chances we could confirm a member of the Supreme Court who would be friendly to the Second Amendment in the next couple of years?

Who would benefit more by rushing a Second Amendment ruling now instead of waiting?

Do you think the NRA, SAF, SAS or JPFO know the answers to these questions?

Frohickey

February 13, 2003, 12:08 AM

Rehnquist - appointed Nixon 1971, born 1924
Stevens - appointed Nixon 1975, born 1920
O'Connor - appointed Reagan 1981, born 1930
Scalia - appointed Reagan 1986, born 1936
Kennedy - appointed Reagan 1988, born 1936
Souter - appointed Bush 1990, born 1939
Thomas - appointed Bush 1991, born 1948
Ginsberg - appointed Klintoon 1993, born 1933
Breyer - appointed Klintoon 1994, born 1938

Who was the last person to become a Supreme Court Justice?
--- Breyer
Would you say that person is pro or anti-gun?
--- anti
What are the odds we will lose a Second Amendment ruling?
--- dunno
What are the chances an anti-gun Supreme Court Justice may retire in the next couple of years?
--- dunno, Stevens is very old though.
What are the chances we could confirm a member of the Supreme Court who would be friendly to the Second Amendment in the next couple of years?
--- dunno, depends on when a vacancy opens up, and if GWB is reelected
Who would benefit more by rushing a Second Amendment ruling now instead of waiting?
--- people lose, because a right delayed is a right denied.
Do you think the NRA, SAF, SAS or JPFO know the answers to these questions?
--- yes... a very pro-2A ruling would dry up NRA/SAF/SAS/JPFO contributions, so would an anti-2A ruling. The big dogs want a status quo to milk members for all they are worth. Trick is to appear to be making some inroads into restoration of the 2A, while not substantially changing the status quo.

I know that my NRA-ILA contributions will go down to nothing if a pro-2A decision is passed. Gonna need the $$$ to get some Sport Utility Rifles and Standard Capacity Magazines. :D:evil:

Shamaya

February 13, 2003, 01:20 AM

"What are the odds we will lose a Second Amendment ruling?"If we don't fight for a correct ruling, the odds of winning one are 0%.

If we wait until some terrorist, felon, child rapist gets a 2A argument heard, the odds of losing are much higher than 50%.

If Silveira v. Lockyer gets heard, the odds of winning are much better than 50%."What are the chances an anti-gun Supreme Court Justice may retire in the next couple of years?Too iffy to bet on it, but my answer is "slim". The anti-gunners are the liberals, and they'll hold on in hopes that Bush gets replaced in the '04 election.

Chances are better that a Justice will retire in the next 6 years, though. Are you willing to base Liberty on the hope that Bush will be reelected AND that he will appoint a strict Constitutionalist who will rule correctly? I think he'll lose, as a direct result of selling gunowners out when it comes time to sunset the AW ban -- and that he'll also support a sellout against a case fought to undo a state AW ban. (Bush/Ashcroft will probably come out against Silveira even being heard.) And who he's floating as a possible Justice isn't exactly a Scalia.

The Bush/Ashcroft "alllies" took a stand that the law Emerson challenged was not a violation of the Second Amendment -- proving that the administration is run by liars (a word that is far too kind) who put politics above fundamental rights. I see no reason to bet on such people suddenly living up to their phony RKBA rhetoric.What are the chances we could confirm a member of the Supreme Court who would be friendly to the Second Amendment in the next couple of years?Fair to very poor, leaning toward very poor.Who would benefit more by rushing a Second Amendment ruling now instead of waiting?Gunowners. Constitutionalists. Patriots. People in prison for owning firearms that are protected by 2A. People being prosecuted for owning firearms that are protected by 2A. People who live in areas where bearing arms is banned. Etc.Do you think the NRA, SAF, SAS or JPFO know the answers to these questions?I tend to think NRA does. (SAF tried to get Emerson heard -- a case where a guy had allegedly pulled a gun on his wife.) I think at least in terms of NRA, they don't want S.Ct. to hear Silveira because it would cost them millions of dollars in annual revenue, for two primary reasons: 1) It's not their case, and they are on record for having tried to kill it. 2) If Silveira is heard, chances are very high it will be a victory on at least the two fundamental issues before the court, assuring that people who fund gun rights organizations will go back to filling gun cabinets and game tags.

I also believe that NRA's record of opposition to Silveira and the fact that no large gun rights organizations are aggressively supporting the case is a very good impetus to have the Justices agree to hear the case. (But you can bet NRA and many other groups will be falling all over themselves to file amicus curiae briefs if/when S.Ct. agrees to hear the case.)

I also believe the fact that the experienced litigator helping design the strategy is who he is (http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/lucas/roy.asp) stacks the deck heavily in our favor on many fronts unreachable by the big, well-established groups.

Col. Mustard

February 13, 2003, 02:28 AM

Stevens - appointed Nixon 1975, born 1920

Actually, Stevens was appointed by Ford.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/stevens.bio.html

It will be interesting to see of the lawsuit filed Monday in DC's Federal District Court comes into play. It's got to help the momentum... Not that I think that case will win (a Clinton appointee on the bench), but it will keep the issue on the front burner, where it has not been since 1939.

publius

February 13, 2003, 06:44 AM

Thanks, Angel. I don't think anyone's ever been nicer when telling me I'm a century behind the times. ;)

Bartholomew Roberts

February 13, 2003, 09:04 AM

The Fifth and Ninth Circuits both agree expressly, if those folks would only read the opinions, that the Supreme Court decisions on incorporation reach the Second Amendment and require that Presser v Illinois be ignored

I'd be more than happy to read the opinions mentioned if someone would reference the cases that show this.

Shamaya

February 13, 2003, 07:56 PM

Publius said:Thanks, Angel. I don't think anyone's ever been nicer when telling me I'm a century behind the times.Just glad you're not offended as I certainly meant no harm. You're also not alone. Many of the misconceptions about a 2A Supreme Court battle under which I was operating are quite common. Some things I took for granted about what it would take to win such a case were built on pure ignorance -- but they are accepted as "common knowledge" among the misinformed gun rights community.

Bartholomew Roberts said:I'd be more than happy to read the opinions mentioned if someone would reference the cases that show this.There are times to share legal strategies, and there are times not to. Given the fact that not only the anti-gunners want us to lose but that at least some people and at least one organization (http://keepandbeararms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3556) on "our" side (supposedly) want Silveira to die on the vine, presenting legal strategies at this juncture wouldn't be prudent.

However, once it's time to petition for the S.Ct. hearing, I imagine we'll be publishing that petition in toto for all to see. When we do, many new approaches not taken in previous 2A cases will be apparent to the legal minded. And if the Silveira cert. petition isn't granted, I'll bet you a brand new rifle that the groundbreaking material contained therein will be pirated for future use by attorneys who are currently considered the brightest minds in the RKBA movement.

Bartholomew Roberts

February 14, 2003, 09:01 AM

There are times to share legal strategies, and there are times not to. Given the fact that not only the anti-gunners want us to lose but that at least some people and at least one organization on "our" side (supposedly) want Silveira to die on the vine, presenting legal strategies at this juncture wouldn't be prudent.

I am not asking anyone to share legal strategies. I simply expressed my opinion that prior rulings on incorporation made this attempt DOA. I was informed that there were cases and opinions in both the Fifth and Ninth circuit that proved my opinion wrong. All I am asking for is the names of those cases so I can look them up and educate myself - without that knowledge I'll have to go with what I already know and that knowledge says that this case is a dead issue before the Supreme Court.

Oleg Volk

February 14, 2003, 10:14 AM

Twoblink: taking newbies to the range is essential...but the limiting factor is the amount of time we have, not even the money (.22 ammo is cheap).

On the legal challenge: best we support a challenge that was planned and brought by competent people. The other alternative is ending up with the likes of Miller and having the decisions of that sort end up as precedents. In my opinion, this action is worth supporting, both with money and with links from other forums and web sites.

Blackhawk

February 14, 2003, 05:49 PM

Thanks for floating this. It will be much easier to keep up with, and it will get many more views.

Russ

February 14, 2003, 06:06 PM

Shamaya wrote:

"But I do request that you take more care in the future when referring to our efforts to right this country and stop the assaults on our countrymen."

You throw this little blurb in after you say no offense? I take offense to your tone. If you are going to quote someone, you really should attribute it to them. Who is this all knowing attorney?

Perhaps I erred and the case does not have to go before the full 9th before SCOTUS will consider it. It was certainly not out of a desire to assault our "countrymen's" rights. Perhaps I assumed it from the fact that Mr. Gorski requested that the whole 9th Circuit hear his argument after the 3 judge panel ruled?

I am well aware of the assaults made on "our countrymen" by the government of California. It would be wonderful to have the differing intrerpretations of the Second Amendment between the 5th and the 9th decided once and for all in our favor. However, based the refusal of the SCOTUS to take on Emerson or other recent 2nd Amendment cases, I don't hold out much hope that they will hear Gorski's case.

That's my opinion and you are welcome to yours. Time will prove who is better at predicting the future.

Russ

Jim March

February 14, 2003, 06:40 PM

There's so much going on with this case now, it's almost a "quagmire", but enough things are going right that I too hope it goes "all the way".

Jeez, where do we start?

* The 9th Circuit is now "internally split" on exactly HOW our rights are to be stripped! In the previous cases of Fresno Rifle (1989 I think?), Hickman (1995) and California AG Lockyer's position paper on the RKBA, they all took the position that regardless of what the 2nd Amendment is, it cannot limit state powers due to lack of incorporation. In Reinhard's Silveira ruling, he torpedoed that by noting that Presser vs. Illinois (1886) and Cruickshank (1875) are "outdated" and no longer to be relied on as authority for the 2nd not applying to the states.

Someone mentioned that about Presser earlier in this thread. Presser really relies on Cruikshank as it's foundation, and it's Cruikshank that's vulnerable. It was basically a wildly pro-KKK decision by the USSC, and will last all of about 5 seconds once the USSC sees somebody stupid enough to rely on it (like Lockyer, or HCI, or VPC, or LCAV and other such morons).

* I assume the fact that Silveira disagrees with previous 9th Circuit opinions is why Gary Gorski and co decided to try En Banc. I consider En Banc worth trying because A), we might even win (granted, not likely in the 9th!) and B), it gives Dubya a chance to fill retiree vacancies at the USSC. Despite the dissapointments of the Dubya administration post-9/11, his track record on picking judges is good and the people he's been considering lately as front-runners have been uniformly excellent.

* The NRA are nervous about Silveira for a number of reasons. It's a really sucky circuit, it's about highly politicized "assault rifles" that the media has made the general public nervous on, Gorski made minor mistakes in his brief (such as leading off with a Hitler quote that is a known "urban legend") and then to top it off, Gary got dragged into a giant public pissing with Chuck Michel, which has helped nobody.

Most of what's here:

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

...is pretty good. But sadly, it now also contains an outright lie written by Brian Puckett:

--------------------
The reasons for this are many. They include the effect of anti-gun propaganda generated by the government and communications media, and the failure of increasingly socialized, urbanized, history-illiterate citizens to understand the importance of an armed citizenry in maintaining freedom. Also included is the fact that the largest gun-rights organization, the NRA, has no courts-related strategy for regaining our lost rights, or even maintaining the status quo. Their plan, and the plan of the gun community in general, is the tactical non-plan of simply reacting to the assaults of the anti-gun forces.
--------------------

It's been revealed as a lie when the NRA backed the lawsuit against the DC general gun ban by Cato institute legal scholars. The NRA wants to fight in DC because:

* Better courts, and a faster path to the USSC;

* It's a general ban on even HOME DEFENSE, which most people would see as "way too much". (It's also a ban on street defense and more and it's all being fought in this one case.)

Anyways. Given the NRA's current support for another offensive gameplan, I would ask that Angel edit the Silveira site.

I support both the Silveira effort and the Cato/NRA plan in DC.

Shamaya

February 14, 2003, 07:56 PM

Russ said:Shamaya wrote:

"But I do request that you take more care in the future when referring to our efforts to right this country and stop the assaults on our countrymen."

You throw this little blurb in after you say no offense? I take offense to your tone. If you are going to quote someone, you really should attribute it to them. Who is this all knowing attorney?

Perhaps I erred and the case does not have to go before the full 9th before SCOTUS will consider it. It was certainly not out of a desire to assault our "countrymen's" rights. Perhaps I assumed it from the fact that Mr. Gorski requested that the whole 9th Circuit hear his argument after the 3 judge panel ruled?If requesting that you take more care when refering to our efforts after you made a false statement about our efforts offends you -- even when I told you no offense is intended -- then I don't know what else to say, Russ. I never insinuated that your motives were less than honorable; I simply corrected your misstatement about our efforts and made a fair request.

The attorney is referenced repeatedly in the original link that started this entire thread. (I invite you to read the first post on this thread and the link provided.) I've also referred to him a few times and provided a link to information about him. Feel free to read it if you are so inclined: http://KeepAndBearArms.com/lucas/roy.asp

And I wouldn't refer to him as "all knowing," personally. He's just a few light years further down the road on the subject matter than you and I combined.

I also do not fault you for making a false assumption, Russ. We've all done it. I do, however, reiterate my request that you take more care when referring to our efforts; I don't want people thinking inaccurate statements based on erroneous assumptions are correct or factual when they aren't. I don't think that's asking much. And I hope you have a nice weekend.

Shamaya

February 14, 2003, 08:30 PM

Quotes below are from your message above:Gorski made minor mistakes in his brief (such as leading off with a Hitler quote that is a known "urban legend") and then to top it off, Gary got dragged into a giant public pissing with Chuck Michel, which has helped nobody.Minor mistakes in a brief to the 9th Circuit are irrelevant when it comes time to petition S.Ct. for a hearing, Jim. They'll be reading the certiorari petition and supporting documents. Chuck wouldn't know that as he has no S.Ct. experience -- and he thinks you have to be arrested in order to be allowed to fight for your rights in court.

The, as you call it, "giant public pissing contest" between Michel and Gorski could actually play in our favor. In fact, if NRA stays out of Silveira for the duration, it'd have a much better chance of being heard and won at S.Ct. Furthermore, the fact that NRA's attorney tried to kill the case is also quite helpful -- "everybody knows" NRA is a political machine. Their lack of involvement and known opposition is a blessing.

Most of what's here:

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

...is pretty good. But sadly, it now also contains an outright lie written by Brian Puckett:

--------------------
The reasons for this are many. They include the effect of anti-gun propaganda generated by the government and communications media, and the failure of increasingly socialized, urbanized, history-illiterate citizens to understand the importance of an armed citizenry in maintaining freedom. Also included is the fact that the largest gun-rights organization, the NRA, has no courts-related strategy for regaining our lost rights, or even maintaining the status quo. Their plan, and the plan of the gun community in general, is the tactical non-plan of simply reacting to the assaults of the anti-gun forces.
--------------------

It's been revealed as a lie when the NRA backed the lawsuit against the DC general gun ban by Cato institute legal scholars. First, be real careful when you call someone a liar, Jim -- if you are mistaken, you start having to deliver apologies.

As stated on that page, that article was written and published in 1999. It was only edited once after publication, very recently, to correct grammatical errors and some very slight wording. I know, because I did that editing, and I did the original publishing.

Perhaps you'd enlighten us as to exactly what "NRA backed the lawsuit against the DC general gun ban by CATO institute" actually means. I encourage you to take great care before answering.

Stated another way, exactly how did NRA "back" the CATO lawsuit, Jim? They didn't write the suit, their attorneys are not co-counsel, and I'm told they didn't even know when it was going to be filed. Do you mean they gave CATO money, long after the lawsuit was on its way? Please do clarify.The NRA wants to fight in DC because:

* Better courts, and a faster path to the USSC;

* It's a general ban on even HOME DEFENSE, which most people would see as "way too much". (It's also a ban on street defense and more and it's all being fought in this one case.)Please validate your statement that a DC-filed suit is "a faster path to the USSC". And please elaborate on both why you think the DC court system is "better" to bring a 2A lawsuit and why the courts are "better", as well.Anyways. Given the NRA's current support for another offensive gameplan, I would ask that Angel edit the Silveira site.It sounds as if you believe Brian Puckett should have known NRA would "back" (to be defined and corroborated by you, if possible) a CATO lawsuit when he wrote that article in 1999. It also sounds like NRA is taking more credit for the CATO suit than is authentic. That wouldn't surprise me, since their telemarketers have claimed to be supporting Silveira.I support both the Silveira effort and the Cato/NRA plan in DC.That's a smarter position to take than the one NRA's attorney took. Good for you.

Eagerly awaiting your reply,

Jim March

February 14, 2003, 11:58 PM

We agree that the mistakes are functionally irrelevant. But remember that the NRA always tries to look like the 800lbs gorilla that never loses. Make screwups in the initial pleading, and they'll get the idea that hooking up with you is risky. Pissing up a storm about that is silly.

I missed that Brian Puckett wrote that in '99. I admit, that changes one thing in that back then, NRA wasn't *talking about* what their gameplan was.

BUT it was still rather presumptuous of Brian to announce that "they had no gameplan". I'll grant that he probably didn't *think* he was lying but if they did have a plan, it'd be a dumb thing to say, no? After years of NRA bashing on Brian's part, you think they'd let HIM in on anything?

There's a major figure in all this y'all around factoring in: Don Kates. Kates may be retired from practice, but he knew about pretty much every single law review article coming down the pike in our favor. And there's been a bunch, and not just from "pro-gunners" - ever read some of Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar's stuff? Kates (and Stephen Halbrook) have been tracking the scholarship, consulting on many of the key pieces.

The NRA "plan" has been to get solid scholarship published first, then go to court. They've been playing for the very long term.

As to the exact links to the DC suit, I'll have a chance to score details Monday so that'll have to wait.

Shamaya

February 15, 2003, 02:01 AM

Jim,

There are several statements you made in your previous post -- the one where you called someone a liar -- that aren't true. I requested validation of those claims, not small talk on other issues.

Jim March

February 15, 2003, 02:52 AM

The only statements you could be talking about were:

1) "A DC case can go to the USSC faster." I am under the impression that the DC courts form their own small "circuit" outside of the main "circuits", and it goes by some special name. Being smaller, appeals happen faster. Is that incorrect?

Here's a story on the DC Cato/NRA case:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/11/21/71030.shtml - note the reference to a "DC Court of Appeals". That's what I thought - they're outside the "circuit system".

2) I said that the NRA is involved in the DC suit. I read that, but don't have all the details and don't want to go into that until I do. I try not to "shoot from the hip" TOO often.

3) I said that saying "the NRA has no gameplan" is a lie. If stated today, it would be. If stated in 1999, it may not have been a deliberate lie but it WAS rash and arrogant - Brian Puckett's *opinion* was that they had no gameplan, he had no basis for stating that as cold fact which is exactly how he phrased it.

------------------------------

In other news, the last time the DC gun hit a court was in 1986, the Sandidge case:

http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/cases/sandidge.html

It's a classic "Miller Mutilation" case, twisting the living crap outta US vs. Miller (trying to read it as "the USSC says all gun bans are cool"). The 5th Circuit in Emerson said something entirely different about Miller and it's obvious that's why this area (speaking legally and geographically) was targeted.

Wildalaska

February 15, 2003, 04:01 AM

Can you find any RKBA heavyweight attorney with those kinds of credentials? If so, show me just one.

Stephan Halbrook, Esq.

By the way Mr Smaya Ive read your website and it seems you are seeking donations to COA...tell me what is the nature of the agreement you/they have with Mr. Lucas? What is his hourly rate? What percentage of donations are being paid to him and by whom? Any administrative fees? Who gets them? Are you being paid any funds via donations? How about your corportation?

What is the efficient use of funs you talk about?

Is Mr Lucas a part of your corporation? You are a "for profit" corporation are you not?

If Lucas is such a beleiver why isnt he contributing his time, in all or in part?

WildquestionsAlaska

Jim March

February 15, 2003, 04:08 AM

Halbrook regularly works closely with the NRA.

Oleg Volk

February 15, 2003, 11:09 AM

Glad to see additional questions on financial and affiliation issues. Mr.Shamaya, full disclosure of relevant info will be a big help. All: please go easy on negative labels -- we got to work this together and decide the issue on its merits, not have incidental personality clashes decide the issues for us. As we all know, we have limited funds and they ought to be spent well -- it is up to KABA to convince us that the cause is worth supporting.

PS: I, personally, am convinced -- but I welcome the debate anyhow to verify my facts and impressions.

Shamaya

February 15, 2003, 04:19 PM

Quotes are yours, Jim:1) "A DC case can go to the USSC faster." I am under the impression that the DC courts form their own small "circuit" outside of the main "circuits", and it goes by some special name. Being smaller, appeals happen faster. Is that incorrect?Washington, D.C.'s court system is the most highly politicized in the nation. It's the conflagration point of politics -- the American epicenter of political manipulation. You said a case moves through faster in that political swamp and that they are "better courts" -- while calling someone a liar. I again request that you substantiate your claims (not with questions, and preferably with something besides your "impression").2) I said that the NRA is involved in the DC suit. I read that, but don't have all the details and don't want to go into that until I do. I try not to "shoot from the hip" TOO often.You based NRA's alleged "backing" of the CATO lawsuit as justification for calling someone a liar for what he said three years earlier. Failure to substantiate your claim suggests that you already shot from the hip and called someone a liar as one of your shots. You submited a link on the CATO lawsuit that says nothing of NRA backing. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/11/21/71030.shtml

If you cannot substantiate your claim, you owe Mr. Puckett an apology. In fact, even if you could, his opinion, shared by many others, is still a valid opinion, so you owe him one anyway.3) I said that saying "the NRA has no gameplan" is a lie. If stated today, it would be. If stated in 1999, it may not have been a deliberate lie but it WAS rash and arrogant - Brian Puckett's *opinion* was that they had no gameplan, he had no basis for stating that as cold fact which is exactly how he phrased it.First, what he actually wrote in 1999 was that they had "no courts-related strategy for regaining our lost rights." And given the fact that NRA has never taken a Second Amendment lawsuit to the Supreme Court, I'd say it was a fair expression of his opinion, and one that many people share. You overstated calling him a liar, and you still haven't told us what "NRA backed" means in regards to the CATO lawsuit.

You also said the public disagreements between Gorski and Michel have "helped nobody." I say they're quite helpful on many fronts. Does having an opinion different than yours also make me a liar?

You also opined that using a debunked quote in the original complaint was somehow a big deal, when it isn't a big deal at all. In fact, the Judge who wrote the opinion cited Bellesiles twice and has since amended those citations (one deleted, one cited to someone else).In other news, the last time the DC gun hit a court was in 1986, the Sandidge case:

http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/cases/sandidge.html

It's a classic "Miller Mutilation" case, twisting the living crap outta US vs. Miller (trying to read it as "the USSC says all gun bans are cool"). The 5th Circuit in Emerson said something entirely different about Miller and it's obvious that's why this area (speaking legally and geographically) was targeted.If you haven't read Roy Lucas' Miller Revisited, when you finally do, you'll understand why David T. Hardy says, "Roy Lucas' work for (and not merely on) the Second Amendment is stunning, absolutely stunning. His investigation of the Supreme Court's Miller decision (based on original research in the National Archives) puts that ruling in an entirely new -- and unflattering -- light."

The annihilation of Miller is a key to victory. Lucas' take on Miller opens several new doorways. If Silveira is heard, Miller is going down hard, bringing every single case that relied on Miller into question. If Silveira is not heard, that work will be applied to future cases, per our agreement with Mr. Lucas.

Speaking of which, Mr. Wildalaska, your answers are forthcoming.

Bartholomew Roberts

February 15, 2003, 06:26 PM

Perhaps some can clarify this for me, but the opinion that says that Presser and Cruikshank aren't relevant is the Silveira opinion and the author of that is Judge Reinhardt? Sounds like he wants to see it in front of the Supreme Court worse than Gorski does.

Good strategy on the anti part though to jettison the part of your argument that aligns you with the KKK and a blatantly racist ruling.

Wildalaska

February 16, 2003, 02:36 PM

Speaking of which, Mr. Wildalaska, your answers are forthcoming.

When? Takes you over 24 hours to construct an answer? This is about funds you are soliciting...and btw why isnt the info posted on your web site.

Oleg Volk

February 16, 2003, 04:23 PM

Wildalaska,

The answers might not be forthcoming instantly because it takes time to type them up. Weird as it may sound, Mr. Shamaya has a life outside of THR and quite a few peojects he's furthering simultaneously. The man does more pro-RKBA work than just about anyone I know.

The reputations of KABA and COA are enough for me to put my trust into this project. For others, additional information will be forthcoming. I really do hope that no one will question KABA's dedication to our common cause, whether or not they decide to help actively. They've done enough already to merit some appreciation from us. Don't know if you are aware of how many sites and organizations were either created by KABA or strongly supported by them at the inception.

Wildalaska

February 16, 2003, 04:56 PM

I really do hope that no one will question KABA's dedication to our common cause, whether or not they decide to help actively.

I am withholding my comments on that until I see the answers to the previous questions and some others I will have..I would note however, that the NRA has done more to help the casue of firearms freedom thatn any other organization, yet they are questioned here regularly, and critisized in the harshest language. Is Mr. Shamaya, who by the way exhibits a belligerent attitude in some of his posts, such an icon that he cant be questioned?

By the way, the NRA, love it or hate it, is a not for profit corporation.....

The answers might not be forthcoming instantly because it takes time to type them up.

Seems to me that important info like that would be already in a format ready for submission...

jimpeel

February 16, 2003, 05:32 PM

Gorski called me and we spoke for about ten minutes. I had sent him a letter setting out the circular argument of the "... right of the states to arm militias cannot be infringed by the federal government” interpretation. He found it interesting and had not heretofore considered it. Here is that circular argument:

Based on Article I, Section 10, para 3.

"No State shall, without the consent of Congress, ... keep troops, or Ships of War in time of peace, ..."

ie: The States have to have the permission from Congress to do what is otherwise prohibited to them; but the Second Amendment prevents the Congress from disarming the States who need their permission to be so equipped in the first place. (start over from beginning of sentence and repeat to infinity)

Blackhawk

February 16, 2003, 06:21 PM

Excellent, Jim! :neener:

Shamaya

February 16, 2003, 08:32 PM

Joint Response from Angel Shamaya of KABA and Brian Puckett of COA

Neither COA nor KeepAndBearArms.com normally conduct business on discussion forums. It is inefficient, reaches a narrow audience, and is potentially never-ending. However, Angel Shamaya weighed in previously in this venue, so we are simultaneously addressing these questions regarding fundraising, relationships and the like.

Citizens Of America and KeepAndBearArms.com are smaller, newer organizations, and questions regarding use of donations are legitimate, so we will respond.

COA’s primary purpose is to educate the GENERAL PUBLIC (as opposed to people on our email lists, or readers of gun publications) about the dangers of gun control and the lies and hypocrisy of anti-gun fanatics. A secondary mission is to fund gun rights lawsuits that may soon end the harassment, fines, imprisonment, and killing of Americans who exercise their right to own, carry, and use guns. COA’s goal is not to make money but to restore, as soon as possible, before things get any worse, the free exercise of our rights.

KeepAndBearArms.com is a C corporation – with the benefits and limitations that implies. KABA is also going to be establishing a 501(c)(3) organization to facilitate various projects more suited to an entity taxed as such, to be announced when we get around to that project. KABA is basically a news and information source. In just three years it has become the premier gun rights internet news site, outranking the carefully controlled NRA sites and all other website of gun rights organizations. KeepAndBearArms.com is used by gun rights activists all over the world to get straight, uncensored RKBA-related news, to locate source material, to read information and opinion articles available no-where else. This is an incredible achievement, due entirely to those who have given time and money to KABA.

If you believe that we must finally ATTACK THE GUN RIGHTS PROBLEM AT THE ROOTS (general public perception of guns, getting fundamental 2nd Amendment issues settled in the courts); and if you believe in a no-compromise position on the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment; and if you agree that gun rights organizations should be calling for the REPEAL of unconstitutional gun control “laws”, and NOT calling for them to be ENFORCED as the current NRA managers are doing, then support us. We strive to use every dime donated as efficiently and effectively as possible, and we believe we have done an excellent job thus far. As a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt public benefit corporation, COA provides financial disclosure statements to the federal and California governments each year. California will be providing direct scans of the documents we submit every year.

It certainly would be a good thing, however, if the current management of the NRA were questioned as closely, since they take in at least $150,000,000 a year. One must wonder why it is that the largest gun rights organization in the world has never pushed a Second Amendment lawsuit through the Supreme Court.

With respect to the Silveira v. Lockyer lawsuit: it was COA and KABA that facilitated cooperation between Gary Gorski, attorney for the plaintiffs in this potentially huge, historic lawsuit, and Roy Lucas (http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/lucas/roy.asp). Gary Gorski has himself deemed Mr. Lucas’ work absolutely irreplaceable to this lawsuit. This work includes producing a model petition to the Supreme Court to grant certiorari for Silveira v. Lockyer. His other work will have powerful effects on both this AND future 2nd Amendment court battles. Mr. Lucas’ work is not just “worth” supporting – it is essential to our goal of seeing the 2nd Amendment again respected and enforced.

Mr. Lucas began his Second Amendment legal work out of dedication to the cause. He is not an officer, employee, or member of our organizations, nor have we hired him as an attorney in any capacity. With your help he will receive a continuing grant over the next several months, allowing him to maintain his normal modest lifestyle while focusing exclusively on the projects vital to the Silveira v. Lockyer case as outlined on the website page linked above. The final level of support is unknown at this time since it depends upon donations from gun owners and like-minded individuals.

Whatever Mr. Lucas receives from gun owners via our fundraising efforts, it cannot repay him for just the work he has already done on our behalf. When one considers the arrests, the court battles, the loss of life savings, the terrible costs to families, and even the lives lost that will continue to occur, the cost in dollars seems insignificant. We must put an end to this ugly chapter in American history. We ask, again, that you help us do it.

Thus far, every dollar coming in through donations since we started this project has gone to, or will soon be spent on, supporting this work crucial to the Silveira v. Lockyer lawsuit. Of course, both COA and KABA have fixed overhead costs. Without paying the bills we could not perform our particular missions. In the future, only if it becomes necessary, we will retain from overall donations only the minimal amount needed to continue our normal, low-overhead operations -- which includes more fundraising for this project.

Angel Shamaya, Brian Puckett, and COA co-founder David Codrea, have given thousands of hours of free time to our organizations and to the cause of freedom, which we do not want, nor do we expect, to be paid for. But we committed ourselves to doing this work as long as we receive sufficient support from the public.

This year, with your help, both COA and KeepAndBearArms.com will be able to expand our efforts. We’re glad to play a role in a potentially historic Second Amendment lawsuit, and we feel honored to be able to share in the work of a brilliant, experienced attorney who sees the gun rights battle from legal perspectives heretofore unexplored. KABA in particular has several behind-the-scenes projects in various stages of development, each of which will be helpful and productive, whether Silveira is heard by the Supreme Court or not.

The bottom line is: If you like what we are doing, support us. If you disapprove, then don’t. Always feel free to offer us suggestions as to how we might improve what we’re doing. As for us, we will continue to advance our no-compromise gun rights missions – which we hope will become less and less necessary in the near future.

Best regards,

Angel Shamaya, Director, KeepAndBearArms.com
Brian Puckett, President, Citizens Of America

Oleg Volk

February 16, 2003, 09:04 PM

Personally, I consider KABA amd COA to be the most cost-effective organizations out there. I've given money to the NRA, to JPFO, and to KABA and only the last entity produced visible results. I like and appreciate the work done by the other two, but the returns on each additional dollar or hour of time spent favor KABA and COA (in my opinion). Take this as Oleg Volk's view, not as THR official position.

Wildalaska

February 16, 2003, 10:12 PM

And NONE of the questions have been answered...

I for one will not give a single dime to any organization or cause that fails or refuses to disclose where the money goes...and when they do make such disclosures I do not give any money to any organization that uses the $$ to pay for "overhead" instead of their goals..this btw includes most not for profit orgs except for such charitable luminaries as DU, RMEF...

The rest is up to you, the individual members, to decide how your political $$ are spent...

The bottom line is: If you like what we are doing, support us. If you disapprove, then don’t. Always feel free to offer us suggestions as to how we might improve what we’re doing.

I suggest you answer the questions previously answered, so that no inference can be drawn about people lining their own pockets with other peoples money...and if you dont want to do it here, at least do it on your web site.

Oleg Volk

February 17, 2003, 09:33 AM

charitable luminaries as DU

DU = Democratic Underground or some other org?

mjustice

February 17, 2003, 12:21 PM

Oleg:

I don't think you see WildAlaska's point. (And hopefully Mr. Alaska can correct me if I am wrong :))

For each dollar that is submitted via COA/KABA, how much is directly spent on compensating Mr. Lucas on his work?

How much work is being produced for the amount spent (what's his rate)?

How much is it costing COA/KABA to compensate Mr. Lucas? Depositing checks, writing checks to Mr. Lucas, reconciling funds, etc.?

I (like many others) are often skeptical when donating money blindly for causes, since recent "studies" have shown that some organizations raise a lot of money through third parties, and then see only a mere fraction of the proceeds.

This in combination with organizations that soak-up 80+% of their receipts in administration and expenses, can leave donors with a bad taste in their mouth.

Now, while I am *not* accusing Angel Shamaya (or anyone else) of doing anything wrong, I don't think it's unfair to ask for semi-detailed explaination of how the donations are used.

MJ

Wildalaska

February 17, 2003, 03:38 PM

DU = Democratic Underground or some other org?

I was referring to Ducks Unlimited. who else???

Wildalaska

February 17, 2003, 03:55 PM

How much work is being produced for the amount spent (what's his rate)?

Keep in mind also that the great bulk of research on any constituional case is invariably done by law students, whose time is billed to the client at as much as 10 times their rate of pay by the employing lawyer.

Blackhawk

February 17, 2003, 04:21 PM

Keep in mind also that the great bulk of research on any constituional case is invariably done by law students, whose time is billed to the client at as much as 10 times their rate of pay by the employing lawyer.I don't think that's generally accurate.

Most basic research is done by paralegals or interns, and they're billed out much higher than they're paid, but so what? Paper copies are also billed at much above cost, but again, so what?

Legal research is a mining or prospecting type task. A LOT of dirt has to be sifted to isolate the important stuff, which is then given to the experienced lawyers to sort through.

Talked to an honest doctor once. He was complaining about the MediCare billing hoops he had to jump through. He said "I got into medicine to make money, not to fill out forms." Lawyers are the same way. They practice law to make money.

If you'll let some bozo doctor who can't command big fees mess around with you, maybe you'll be happy with some dull lawyer who won't have a chance against the talented ones representing you. You get what you pay for, and take a look at the contracts the sports stars and other entertainers are enjoying. You want the best, you'll have to be able and willing to pay for it.

Altruism is great, but it doesn't draw much talent....

If hiring a gunfighter, get the best there is, not just the best you can afford. There is no second place award.