alan
Member
The following is, aside from interesting reading, ultimately a fund raiser for what seems a worthwhile cause. I've made my own small contribution. Read the 10 reasons and make up your mind, but at least read the 10 paragraphs.
...THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HEAR SILVEIRA V.
LOCKYER and DECIDE THERE IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO
KEEP & BEAR ARMS UNDER THE SECOND & FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS
Some people argue that the U.S. Supreme Court will refuse to hear
the Second Amendment case Silveira v. Lockyer , which will be
appealed from the Ninth Circuit Court in California. Here are ten
(and more) reasons why we think they are wrong, and why you
should support the Silveira case as a rare and important
opportunity for success.
(1) The Supreme Court has not heard a case on the fundamental
right to keep and bear arms since United States v. Miller in 1939 –
63 years ago. The Court hears First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth
Amendment cases virtually every year. And if only four of the nine
Justices decide to hear the case, it will be heard.
(2) There are conflicts of federal circuit courts that need to be
resolved by the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling
in Silveira is directly contrary to the Second Amendment findings
in the Emerson case from the Fifth Circuit Court. Furthermore,
six Ninth Circuit Court judges dissented in Silveira because they
thought Judge Reinhardt’s ruling on the Second Amendment was
wrong. Six dissents are rare and a huge factor in the U.S. Supreme
Court deciding to grant certiorari (to hear the case). Those six
votes in Silveira may be the most important votes for the
individual right to keep and bear arms in the entire past one
hundred years.
(3) The conflict of circuits is long-standing, another factor in
granting certiorari. Emerson conflicts with the First, Second,
Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh federal
US Courts of Appeal. The Supreme Court may have refused to
hear Emerson because the certiorari petition (the formal request
that the Supreme Court hear a case) focused on the commerce
clause, instead of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear
arms.
(4) The certiorari petition in Silveira is thorough and complete.
Hundreds and hundreds of careful hours of research and writing
have gone into this important project. It cleanly presents the clear
Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights of individuals to keep
and bear arms for family, home, business, and community defense.
It is a civil case, not a messy criminal defense. And it does not have
wasteful side arguments that clutter other firearms litigation.
(5) Extensive modern scholarship suggests that Emerson and the
dissenting views in Silveira have the better argument regarding the
meaning of the Second Amendment. The Silveira certiorari
petition references over twenty of the relevant books and articles,
and develops the points succinctly.
(6) Since 1939 the Miller case has been cited to support negative
decisions in every federal circuit but the Fifth in Emerson. The
Silveira cert petition exposes the poor reasoning of Miller
thoroughly and asks that those parts of it that are historically and
constitutionally wrong be overruled.
(7) Silveira presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to
write on a clean slate, to overrule Miller, and to overrule Presser v.
Illinois, which refused to apply the Second Amendment to the
States. There is an overwhelmingly powerful argument on our
side: the Fourteenth Amendment, and the fact that most of the
“individual right†amendments have been ruled as applying to the
states. For example, Massachusetts cannot deny its citizens
freedom of the press because they are protected by the First
Amendment; nor Wyoming force its citizens to testify against
themselves because they are protected by the Fifth Amendment.
(8) The lower court decision in Silveira was written by the most-
reversed federal circuit judge, Stephen Reinhardt, a notorious
liberal activist judge. The dissents, however, were written by
several very well respected circuit judges: Kozinski, Kleinfeld, and
Gould, and joined in by an unusually large group of additional
dissenters. They send a strong message to the Supreme Court to
hear Silveira and reverse Reinhardt.
(9) Specific detailed issues about different kinds of firearms, i.e.,
what the anti-gun crowd mendaciously call “assault weaponsâ€, are
reserved for trial by the Silveira cert petition, since there has been
no trial to determine facts as yet. The Supreme Court is not a trial
court and will only hear the fundamental constitutional questions
raised by the Silveira certiorari petition – that is, does the Second
Amendment, like so many other Amendments, apply to the states?
And is it an individual right, like all the other rights spoken about
in the Bill of Rights? These questions have become extremely
important in both legislation and in politics in the last few years.
The Court will have to deal with them – and we believe they will
deal with them now, rather than later.
(10) The certiorari petition, brief and other materials in Silveira
make a deliberate, carefully crafted effort to persuade all nine
Supreme Court Justices of the need to recognize a strong
individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Arguments are being developed that should resonate with the
various viewpoints held by the different Justices. The individuals
working on Silveira have decades of experience in Bill of Rights
litigation before the Supreme Court with a great deal of success in
other very difficult areas of law. Earlier Second Amendment
activists largely slept through the civil rights movement and made
no progress at all for individual rights until Emerson. Every effort
is being made to present the Silveira arguments in ways that
maximize prospects for success.
One final note: A real danger for us is that some messy criminal
firearms case might get to the Supreme Court first with Second
Amendment issues poorly presented in a horrendous context.
In contrast, Silveira is a clear, straightforward case that involves
upstanding citizens. It has been very well and thoroughly thought
out.
KeepAndBearArms.com IS RAISING FUNDS THAT GO
DIRECTLY TO THE SILVEIRA LITIGATION WORK.
This is your opportunity to MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Your
support is vital now and in the next several months. Please -- give
generously to the Silveira v. Lockyer lawsuit fund, via credit card
or mail:
Credit Card
https://www.keepandbeararms.com/donations
Regular Mail
http://keepandbeararms.com/silveira/mail.htm
If you experience any difficulties, please contact us for assistance. [email protected]
...THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HEAR SILVEIRA V.
LOCKYER and DECIDE THERE IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO
KEEP & BEAR ARMS UNDER THE SECOND & FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS
Some people argue that the U.S. Supreme Court will refuse to hear
the Second Amendment case Silveira v. Lockyer , which will be
appealed from the Ninth Circuit Court in California. Here are ten
(and more) reasons why we think they are wrong, and why you
should support the Silveira case as a rare and important
opportunity for success.
(1) The Supreme Court has not heard a case on the fundamental
right to keep and bear arms since United States v. Miller in 1939 –
63 years ago. The Court hears First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth
Amendment cases virtually every year. And if only four of the nine
Justices decide to hear the case, it will be heard.
(2) There are conflicts of federal circuit courts that need to be
resolved by the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling
in Silveira is directly contrary to the Second Amendment findings
in the Emerson case from the Fifth Circuit Court. Furthermore,
six Ninth Circuit Court judges dissented in Silveira because they
thought Judge Reinhardt’s ruling on the Second Amendment was
wrong. Six dissents are rare and a huge factor in the U.S. Supreme
Court deciding to grant certiorari (to hear the case). Those six
votes in Silveira may be the most important votes for the
individual right to keep and bear arms in the entire past one
hundred years.
(3) The conflict of circuits is long-standing, another factor in
granting certiorari. Emerson conflicts with the First, Second,
Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh federal
US Courts of Appeal. The Supreme Court may have refused to
hear Emerson because the certiorari petition (the formal request
that the Supreme Court hear a case) focused on the commerce
clause, instead of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear
arms.
(4) The certiorari petition in Silveira is thorough and complete.
Hundreds and hundreds of careful hours of research and writing
have gone into this important project. It cleanly presents the clear
Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights of individuals to keep
and bear arms for family, home, business, and community defense.
It is a civil case, not a messy criminal defense. And it does not have
wasteful side arguments that clutter other firearms litigation.
(5) Extensive modern scholarship suggests that Emerson and the
dissenting views in Silveira have the better argument regarding the
meaning of the Second Amendment. The Silveira certiorari
petition references over twenty of the relevant books and articles,
and develops the points succinctly.
(6) Since 1939 the Miller case has been cited to support negative
decisions in every federal circuit but the Fifth in Emerson. The
Silveira cert petition exposes the poor reasoning of Miller
thoroughly and asks that those parts of it that are historically and
constitutionally wrong be overruled.
(7) Silveira presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to
write on a clean slate, to overrule Miller, and to overrule Presser v.
Illinois, which refused to apply the Second Amendment to the
States. There is an overwhelmingly powerful argument on our
side: the Fourteenth Amendment, and the fact that most of the
“individual right†amendments have been ruled as applying to the
states. For example, Massachusetts cannot deny its citizens
freedom of the press because they are protected by the First
Amendment; nor Wyoming force its citizens to testify against
themselves because they are protected by the Fifth Amendment.
(8) The lower court decision in Silveira was written by the most-
reversed federal circuit judge, Stephen Reinhardt, a notorious
liberal activist judge. The dissents, however, were written by
several very well respected circuit judges: Kozinski, Kleinfeld, and
Gould, and joined in by an unusually large group of additional
dissenters. They send a strong message to the Supreme Court to
hear Silveira and reverse Reinhardt.
(9) Specific detailed issues about different kinds of firearms, i.e.,
what the anti-gun crowd mendaciously call “assault weaponsâ€, are
reserved for trial by the Silveira cert petition, since there has been
no trial to determine facts as yet. The Supreme Court is not a trial
court and will only hear the fundamental constitutional questions
raised by the Silveira certiorari petition – that is, does the Second
Amendment, like so many other Amendments, apply to the states?
And is it an individual right, like all the other rights spoken about
in the Bill of Rights? These questions have become extremely
important in both legislation and in politics in the last few years.
The Court will have to deal with them – and we believe they will
deal with them now, rather than later.
(10) The certiorari petition, brief and other materials in Silveira
make a deliberate, carefully crafted effort to persuade all nine
Supreme Court Justices of the need to recognize a strong
individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Arguments are being developed that should resonate with the
various viewpoints held by the different Justices. The individuals
working on Silveira have decades of experience in Bill of Rights
litigation before the Supreme Court with a great deal of success in
other very difficult areas of law. Earlier Second Amendment
activists largely slept through the civil rights movement and made
no progress at all for individual rights until Emerson. Every effort
is being made to present the Silveira arguments in ways that
maximize prospects for success.
One final note: A real danger for us is that some messy criminal
firearms case might get to the Supreme Court first with Second
Amendment issues poorly presented in a horrendous context.
In contrast, Silveira is a clear, straightforward case that involves
upstanding citizens. It has been very well and thoroughly thought
out.
KeepAndBearArms.com IS RAISING FUNDS THAT GO
DIRECTLY TO THE SILVEIRA LITIGATION WORK.
This is your opportunity to MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Your
support is vital now and in the next several months. Please -- give
generously to the Silveira v. Lockyer lawsuit fund, via credit card
or mail:
Credit Card
https://www.keepandbeararms.com/donations
Regular Mail
http://keepandbeararms.com/silveira/mail.htm
If you experience any difficulties, please contact us for assistance. [email protected]