[WomenAgainstGunControl] Silveira vs. Lockyer
From: Janalee Tobias - President/Founder WAGC
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 00:09:30 -0600
To:
Subject: [WomenAgainstGunControl] Silveira vs. Lockyer
Greetings, this is a message that I have forwarded to some political
friends regarding a case headed to the Supreme Court, Silveira vs. Lockyer. You
have to read the e-mail from the bottom up.
The bottom LINE is that WAGC will be filing an amicus brief in this
landmark case. This is EXCITING! Thanks to Howard Fezell, Esq., for
representing WAGC pro bono.
To make contributions to him personally for his help, see his website at:
www.secondamendment.net or contact him by e-mail: [email protected]
Make sure you tell him you're with WAGC.
Best regards, Janalee Tobias
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Charles,
Thanks for sending this out.
Women Against Gun Control, an international women's gun rights
organization
with thousands of members (which little 'ole me founded), is being
represented by Howard Fezell, Esq., Maryland in filing an amicus brief in
this very important case (Silveira vs. Lockyer) which will most likely be
heard before the U.S. Supreme Court. Keep and Bear Arms and Citizens of
America asked WAGC to file an amicus brief to represent women and
minorities. Howard Fezell has graciously offered to represent WAGC pro
bono. He will need money, however, for filing and other costs associated
with this filing.
Any donations made to Keep and Bear Arms will go towards the cost of
filing
and other fees associated with those organizations filing amicus briefs
and
other briefs associated with this lawsuit.
This case will be a huge victory for individual gun rights. Many gun
rights
organizations are supporting this case.
Charles, would you mind passing word to the RKBA lists you're associated
with about this amicus brief? Thanks.
Regards, Janalee Tobias
Howard Fezell's website:
www.secondamendment.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Hardy"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 3:05 PM
Subject: [gopconservatives] Fw: [LPUtah] Fw: Ten Reasons Why...
FYI...
(Fundraising effort to help the case at the end.)
==================
Charles Hardy
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Citizens Of America"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 2:17 PM
Subject: Ten Reasons Why...
> ...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 weapons", 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
>
From: Janalee Tobias - President/Founder WAGC
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 00:09:30 -0600
To:
Subject: [WomenAgainstGunControl] Silveira vs. Lockyer
Greetings, this is a message that I have forwarded to some political
friends regarding a case headed to the Supreme Court, Silveira vs. Lockyer. You
have to read the e-mail from the bottom up.
The bottom LINE is that WAGC will be filing an amicus brief in this
landmark case. This is EXCITING! Thanks to Howard Fezell, Esq., for
representing WAGC pro bono.
To make contributions to him personally for his help, see his website at:
www.secondamendment.net or contact him by e-mail: [email protected]
Make sure you tell him you're with WAGC.
Best regards, Janalee Tobias
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Charles,
Thanks for sending this out.
Women Against Gun Control, an international women's gun rights
organization
with thousands of members (which little 'ole me founded), is being
represented by Howard Fezell, Esq., Maryland in filing an amicus brief in
this very important case (Silveira vs. Lockyer) which will most likely be
heard before the U.S. Supreme Court. Keep and Bear Arms and Citizens of
America asked WAGC to file an amicus brief to represent women and
minorities. Howard Fezell has graciously offered to represent WAGC pro
bono. He will need money, however, for filing and other costs associated
with this filing.
Any donations made to Keep and Bear Arms will go towards the cost of
filing
and other fees associated with those organizations filing amicus briefs
and
other briefs associated with this lawsuit.
This case will be a huge victory for individual gun rights. Many gun
rights
organizations are supporting this case.
Charles, would you mind passing word to the RKBA lists you're associated
with about this amicus brief? Thanks.
Regards, Janalee Tobias
Howard Fezell's website:
www.secondamendment.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Hardy"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 3:05 PM
Subject: [gopconservatives] Fw: [LPUtah] Fw: Ten Reasons Why...
FYI...
(Fundraising effort to help the case at the end.)
==================
Charles Hardy
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Citizens Of America"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 2:17 PM
Subject: Ten Reasons Why...
> ...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 weapons", 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
>