NRA IS filing an Amicus Brief, FINALLY!

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WAGCEVP

Member
Joined
May 26, 2003
Messages
864
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 2:17 PM
Subject: NRA




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






Gary W. Gorski

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

SEPS EXERTUS, SEMPER FIDELIS, FRATER INFINITAS

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

916.965.6800

916.965.6801 fax
 
Finally?

This isn't the first time they filed a brief in the case. It's just that last time it was in support of the state of california.
 
Is the fact that they filed an amicus brief supposed to be what indicates that they're impressed with the case? Or is there some independent evidence of that? Personally, I'd expect them to file an amicus brief even if they thought the case was probably doomed, just so they could claim some of the credit if it actually were granted cert. Kinda like buying a lotto ticket...

When's the brief going to be made public?
 
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 8:10 PM
Subject: State of California


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




Gary W. Gorski

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

SEPS EXERTUS, SEMPER FIDELIS, FRATER INFINITAS

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

916.965.6800

916.965.6801 fax
 
I might argue about the position of the decimal point, but it certainly does improve the chances. Guess that would be enough to prompt the NRA to move.
 
Honestly, I don't think they would. Now, the Cato case I could see... Unless, hypothetically...

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

As I said, Lockyer's failure to oppose cert. makes me nervous.
 
There never will be cert.

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

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

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

Thus, no cert. Or, at best, a ruling which will say: "There is an individual right but...." and then whatever excuse they can find to regulate it away, thus shooting th whole gun rights deal in the head while making us feel good.:fire:
 
Can I view this wonderful cert petition somewhere? I've heard so much about it.
 
Not much point in having a 2nd amendment, if it's never going to be used in court. *I* want the court to take this case, or the Cato case, or any of them.

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

We're losing by inches, let's have this out while we've still got the strength to prevail.
 
"There is an individual right but...." and then whatever excuse they can find to regulate it away, thus shooting th whole gun rights deal in the head while making us feel good.
Click to expand...

That's my fear. Too bad we don't have a Republican majority in the Senate so we can begin undoing fifty years' worth of leftist extremist so-called "judicial activism."
 
Nothing's THAT certain. I'd lay odds against it, but I wouldn't bet much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There have been REPUBLICANS in every Congress where gun control legislation was enacted. What is it that makes you think that a majority of people labeled REPUBLICAN would accomplish anything to make the pro-gun side happy. Remember that Henry Hyde, in the House, is a REPUBLICAN, and John Dingell is a Democrat. Dingell isn't perfect, but last time I looked, he was a large improvement over Hyde.
 
Dingle might be an improvement over Hyde on some days, (Malaria is an improvement over Ebola, too...) but Dingle DID vote for the '94 ban. Nearly losing his office afterwards might have put a scare into him, but we know darned well Dingle is willing to shaft us if he thinks he can get away with it.

By the way, about the Supreme court; I see that the NRA got denied any oral argument time in the campaign finance deform challenge, as McConnel and the other insider plaintifs asked. So much for showing that nitwit some courtesy by letting him go first on filing against it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

2
  • Locked
Briefs Filed in Support of Silveira v. Lockyer
Replies
1
Views
558
Brett Bellmore
B
K
  • Locked
NRA lying about Silveira case AGAIN
Replies
9
Views
813
Gray Peterson
G
W
  • Locked
WAGC news Bulletin: WAGC S VS L AB
Replies
3
Views
502
WAGCEVP
W
A
  • Locked
rec'd. from [email protected]
2
Replies
26
Views
964
alan
A
M
  • Locked
NRA Amicus Brief
Replies
24
Views
948
ilbob
ilbob
Back
Top