NRA lying about Silveira case AGAIN

[KMKeller]

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/silveira/nrajoke.asp

NRA lying about Silveira case AGAIN

Press Release - Is the NRA Serious
from Gary Gorski, attorney for Silveira Plaintiffs
August 26, 2003
[filed here late due to site being down]
[Additional analysis by Angel Shamaya below press release]

The NRA issued the following press release:

NRA Files Brief with the Supreme Court in Silveira v. Lockyer
The National Rifle Association (NRA) has filed an amicus curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Silveira v. Lockyer, arguing that the Second Amendment is indeed an individual right, and a right that is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist said, "Every freedom guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is extended to the individual citizen. The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right and it should not be subject to any discrimination. To address the dilemma of violent crime, lawmakers ought to place the full burden of justice on the criminal element. Sadly, society is more content to trade our valued freedoms as an alternative. We hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will stop this erosion of our independence."

Cox praised the hard work by Chuck Michel, an attorney who has worked on this case in California. "Chuck has worked tirelessly to safeguard Second Amendment rights in California for many years. He is an exceptional individual and a sharp attorney. We are fortunate to have him working on our behalf in California," concluded Cox.

Posted: 8/13/2003 3:45:26 PM
[Click here to see it on NRAILA.org or here for a saved a screenshot.]
This is clearly deceptive --- Chuck Michel has worked tirelessly in attempting to impede the case of Silveira v. Lockyer from its inception, up until the NRA filed it's amicus brief. He has tried to dissuade Silveira's attorney, Gary W. Gorski, from filing the action, and prosecuting the appeal. On appeal in the Ninth Circuit, he filed an amicus brief in opposition to Silveira, arguing that the Plaintiffs/Appellants lacked standing. So, it begs the question: What has Chuck Michel done for the case in California?

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


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

Additional Responses from KeepAndBearArms.com Founder/Executive Director, Angel Shamaya

NRA Chief Lobbyist Chris Cox's press release praising CRPA/NRA attorney Chuck Michel as "an attorney who has worked on this case in California" is overtly dishonest. The insinuation is that Chuck Michel has been helping the Silveira case. Nothing could be further from the truth.

While NRA's amicus brief supporting Silveira is welcome and excellently prepared, the organization has not given one dime toward the Silveira legal battle, of which KeepAndBearArms.com is the sole fundraiser. (They may have paid their law firm to write their brief -- a brief written and filed after the case had already been appealed to the Supreme Court.) Despite this, we have two documented reports that NRA's phone solicitors have raised money under the guise that they've been helping the case -- from months before they prepared their brief. Regardless, for Cox to imply that Chuck Michel has helped this case in any way is a gross insult to the many people who have worked on the case.

Here are some facts Mr. Cox omitted from his press release:

1) NRA/CRPA attorney Chuck Michel tried to KILL the Silveira case. Brian Puckett documented that fact for all to see. Go see for yourself: NRA Lawyer Undermining ALL Our Rights

2) NRA/CRPA Chuck Michel publicly threatened that if Mr. Gorski appealed the case to the Supreme Court, CRPA would "most likely file a brief asking the Supreme Court not to hear the dangerous case." In that press release of May 13, 2003, Michel said, among other things:

A) "CRPA opposes Supreme Court review of the Silveira decision."

B) "It is absolutely the wrong case for Supreme Court review."

3) Chuck Michel actually called Gary Gorski a "Judas" for fighting the Silveira lawsuit. Here's a direct quote from the guy NRA's Chris Cox is praising for being "an attorney who has worked on this case in California":

From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 9:33 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: CRPA Brief

"...you are setting yourself up to be remembered in history as the Judas that betrayed the 2A civil rights movement."

C. D. Michel
TRUTANICH - MICHEL, LLP
A t t o r n e y s a t L a w
Port of Los Angeles Office
407 North Harbor Blvd.
San Pedro, CA 90731
Phone310) 548-3703
Fax: (310) 548-4813
Internet: www.t-mlawyers.com

QUESTIONS FOR CHRIS COX

1) What were Mr. Michel's objectives while he was doing this "work"?

2) Was Mr. Michel trying to HELP the case succeed by announcing that it was "wrong" and "dangerous"?

3) Was Mr. Michel trying to empower the lead counsel by calling him a "Judas that betrayed the 2A civil rights movement"?

4) Does NRA intend to raise money under the false premise that your organization has done, is doing or will be doing anything other than paying a law firm to write and file an amicus brief in this case? There is much work to be done -- why won't NRA help finance this effort?


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

NOTE: WE STILL REQUIRE FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SILVEIRA LEGAL BATTLE AHEAD!

If you have not yet donated to the Silveira v. Lockyer lawsuit fund, will you please do so now?

Give online:

https://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/donations/

Give by mail:

http://KeepAndBearArms.com/silveira/mail.htm

For more information on the case, its development, its success thus far, and details on what your financial support will help fund, go here:

http://KeepAndBearArms.com/Silveira/


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

“The fundraising by KeepAndBearArms.com is essential to Silveira v. Lockyer and has my backing 100%.â€

— Gary Gorski, Attorney for Plaintiffs, Silveira v. Lockyer

 

[Futo Inu]

I can't blame the guy for trying to stop THIS case from reaching the SCOTUS, as it's not an ideal case for FIRST testing our RKBA in the SCOTUS (since Miller in 1939). A case from that circuit or another with facts closer to Emerson's would have been better to first establish an individual right firmly, before proceeding to other issues. Silviera's case, if the SCOTUS takes it and if it's successful (let's hope and pray), it will require a hell of a lot of bold un-PC jurisprudence on the part of the SCOTUS, who are historically so spineless on the issue that they won't even grant cert. So Mr. Michel has a sound methodology, seems to me - try to stop a (arguably) bad test case from reaching SCOTUS, but, if he can't stop it, then immediately do a 180 and jump in with both feet and an amicus bried. Working tirelessly for the RKBA CAN include trying to impede a case from reaching scotus that will establish the of-utmost-importance precedent. We may differ/argue about whether the case should be a test case or not, but if Mr. Michel and the NRA see it differently, in good faith, I cannot take issue with that. At SOME point though, we have to challenge the crap, or we'll never have our rights clearly established, and to Silveira's lawyers' credit, the Scotus does take a certain amount pleasure from taking and reversing cases from the insane rogues on the 9th Circ., so that's an opportunity. I think the Scotus will rip the 9th a new one on the standing issue in this case, if they take, based on my understanding of *standing*.

 

[publius]

There is a difference between doing a 180 on an issue and doing a 180 while trying to maintain that you were helping all along. Hang on, this guy says it better:

The insinuation is that Chuck Michel has been helping the Silveira case. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Jeeper]

FUTO,

I agree with your statement completely except for this part

case from that circuit or another with facts closer to Emerson's would have been better to first establish an individual right firmly

Emersons facts were good except for the fact he was an accused wife beater. I think we need a pure possession case to go up and nothing related to a crime except for the posession itself. I think Silveria is about one of the worst possible that could go up.

 

[Gray Peterson]

I don't understand all this fear and loathing in regards to Silveira. Silveira is a pure civil case. The SCOTUS has already said in the past that you need not be charged with a crime to have standing in most cases. Here's a newsflash: You cannot ever legally buy or own an "assault weapon" in California, since all transfers and such are done through FFL's.

Sure, you can buy it illegally, but most of the people who would be buying them off the street are street pondscum with crappy public defender lawyers. Do you REALLY want some gangbanger to be the first certed RKBA case?

Have you Sky is Falling types even read the cert petition?

Besides, this entire thing is clean. This is not a messy criminal case. It's a clean civil case where all of the people are upstanding citizens. You put a gangbanger as an appellee, and we will lose, guaranteed.

 

[tyme]

I'm not sure why the NRA wants to wait indefinitely for some "perfect" case that may not exist in my lifetime, much less the lifetimes of most NRA members. The SC is just as likely to get some or all of the issues wrong some time in the future as they are now. Does anyone think Mr. "I support the AWB" Bush is going to nominate a 2nd Amendment absolutist if one or more justices retire? Does anyone think the next Republican president will? I guarantee that Dean or Hillary won't. What is the NRA waiting for? If not now, when? The NRA has become institutionalized, and either needs to wake up or die. A terrific or horrible decision in Silveira might accomplish that.

The only possible rationalization I can think of is this: The NRA wanted to bet everything that Bush would nominate pro-2A justices to replace retirees after the 2004 election, and that the Democrats in the Senate wouldn't pull some BS to keep the nominees from being voted on. I have no such faith in GWB. And this tactic is especially dangerous if Bush were to become a lame duck, because Democrats have proven their willingness to stall voting on (much less significant) judicial nominees for months.

 

[Jim March]

Well, with the 9th Circuit basically begging the USSC to clarify things by putting Nordyke on hold until they do, it's WAY too late to argue whether or not Silveira is the best vehicle to pin our hopes on.

Pluses: Silveira and his co-plaintiffs are fine upstanding citizens, and the Lucas/Gorski final brief is very good. The various Amici are all good or better, including the NRA's and a really cool array of pro-gunners of unconventional type .

Downside: it's about "eeevil assault rifles".

Let's get it on .

 

[Gray Peterson]

From KABA:

(1) The first case in which the Supreme Court rules positively on either the first or second item above (individual right, incorporation) will result in a huge flood of Second Amendment-based cases taking that ruling as a starting point. Therefore, the Supreme Court will almost immediately be faced with deciding the remaining issues anyway, and many more. The justices know this, and they may well feel it is best to deal with as much of this as possible in one fell swoop, rather than drag the matter out in a hundred more cases.

Which they've done before. The Lawrence v. Texas case was an example of them taking the case and taking out the all of the sodomy laws with one ruling. Though from a logistical and looking at the bit of a backlash that's going on from Lawrence, it might have been more perferable if the court had ruled that state laws on sodomy that only targetted acts between two person of the same sex unconstitutional (which would have struck down the sodomy laws in 4 states, leaving the other 9 states that by statute prohibit it by anyone), as well as a put a standard that if the remaining states did not equally enforce sodomy laws against all actors of the laws against sodomy against both heterosexuals and homosexuals, that they would be struck down as unconstitutional.

However, that might have given even more leverage to groups that want to legalize same sex marriage by court ruling, by making sexual orientation in general a suspect class. So they struck all of it down to stop a barrage of sodomy law challenges in the nine remaining cases, as well as head off even stronger legal ground more than there is now for legalization of same sex marriage.

It would be like: "Ok folks, we haven't ruled on the second amendment in over 64 years, so here's the standards, and the whole kit and kaboodle, that way everyone, including idiots like Reinhardt, know EXACTLY what we mean by 2nd amendment being an individual right."

Even with an Lawrence style expansive ruling, there still might be mop up operations in the various People's Republics, like MD, NY, MA, NJ, CA, as well as states that continue to either prohibit concealed carry and open carry, as well as states that are still discretionary. Even if the SCOTUS were to rule that people have the right to own, possess, and carry firearms for their own personal protection, you can bet that the PR's, and other various anti-gun regimes, will be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance, much like the southern states during desegregation.

 

[Jim March]

Well the way they got to the decision in Lawrence was by way of the "right to privacy" - which I personally agree with 100%.

Once they did that, ALL the sodomy laws had to come apart, regardless of hetero/homo.

In my mind, they came up with the right answer, which inexorably led to a broad application.

Good. Now let's see 'em do it again.

As to "mopping up operations" - you BET. In fact, I'll predict right now that if the USSC develops a strong right to individual self defense disconnected from "militia duty" by way of the 14th Amendment (which is a VERY reasonable approach), the next big frontier in gun-grabbing will be to try and label bullet lead an "environmental hazard" and shut down ranges plus use that to raise ammo costs.

Win or lose at the USSC, "our side" has already crossed a major point: it is now impossible for anybody to be elected President of the United States who is known as a hardcore grabber.

Gore lost because of his gun-grabber ways. Since then, two more states have gone shall-issue. In shall-issue states, arguing that widespread arms access causes problems simply doesn't work because it's clearly BS.

We're over the hump.

 

[Gray Peterson]

As to "mopping up operations" - you BET. In fact, I'll predict right now that if the USSC develops a strong right to individual self defense disconnected from "militia duty" by way of the 14th Amendment (which is a VERY reasonable approach), the next big frontier in gun-grabbing will be to try and label bullet lead an "environmental hazard" and shut down ranges plus use that to raise ammo costs.

That's already being done now, and many states have already passed range protection laws already, 45 of them in all.

I'm personally more interested in striking down handgun bans and legalizing CCW in all 50 states, and annihilating discretionary permit carry laws. If the SCOTUS or the courts of appeals where to start ruling that a lack of need is not enough of a reason to deny a permit to carry, or in the case of New York, a pistol license, then all of the US would become "shall-issue". What would likely happen is a bunch of grandstanding in the discretionary states. You'd have Michael Bloomberg standing at the Pistol License division door if you will.

In the states that forbid all carrying of firearms for personal protections, it would create a Vermont carry situation until the Legislature's of those state panics and creates a permit system for concealed carry, on a shall-issue basis.