Legislation Archives

	About Us	Schedule	Course Descriptions	Media Info
	Contact Us	Directions	Instructor/RSO Certification	Links

Are we ready for a Supreme Court ruling?
There is a case, Silveira v. Lockyer that is being prepared for hearing before the United States Supreme Court to decide once and for all if the Second Amendment is an individual or collective right. There is much debate over this critically important issue. We should aggressively and passionately argue this issue and then come to consensus. Once we make the decision, then ALL gun owners and freedom-loving Americans should come together and then, UNITED, put all of our efforts into the fight for our much-endangered Right. In this spirit I offer the following points of view...
Pro-Silveira	Con-Silveira
The Silveira v. Lockyer lawsuit is proceeding toward the U.S. Supreme Court. (See: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/silveira/enbanc.asp ) If we succeed, the Court will rule on true Second Amendment issues for the first time since 1939. The lead attorney, Gary Gorski, is a patriot and a pit bull---a man of intellect and courage, who is committed to fighting with every resource he can marshal. One of our finest legal minds ( http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Lucas/roy.asp) is helping guide its progress, conducting research, preparing a landmark legal review, and planning a winning strategy to induce the Supreme Court first to hear the case, and then to rule favorably about the truth we all know: that the Second Amendment applies to every state in the U.S., protects an individual right to own and use guns, and may not be restricted without immediate, clear, and compelling reasons ---as with the rights of free speech, free press, and religion. I have been privileged to be included in the strategy sessions shaping this case. What I have seen has convinced me that, if ever there was a means to resolve this issue---in our lifetime---this is it. We can continue trying the same old stale approaches that have led us down the path of continuous erosion of our rights---or we can strike out and try something bold---something worthy of the sacrifices of those who went before us. I don't address this appeal to anyone who wants to make excuses about why they think this won't work. The timid, the negative, the unimaginative and the lazy---the loudmouthed, ignorant pessimists of the message boards---need not apply. The authority worshippers who think we can reestablish liberty through humble supplications to oath-breaking legislators can continue fruitlessly pounding their heads against the wall. Those who insist on supporting such wretches, even after they've been betrayed (using the "lesser of two evils" rationale), will never win our freedom. You know it and I know it. As Samuel Adams said, we seek not their counsel nor their arms, and may their chains set lightly. They simply don't matter. To all who SAY they believe the right to keep and bear arms is inalienable, endowed by our Creator, let's find out now how sincere you are. A band of your countrymen is moving ahead with determination. There is no stopping them and no turning them back. The outcome will affect YOU and the future of your freedom. You can join them or bolt the door, close the blinds and let them face the storm without you. How you look them---or your children---in the eye afterward is your business. I've shared their road for some time now, and I'll not let them proceed alone. I have already put my money where my mouth is, and will continue to do so. A campaign depends on logistics, on supplies, paid for with hard cash. So with the posting of this article, I am including a check for $50 to the Silveira v Lockyer lawsuit (not my first). And I will continue to do this once each month for the next 12 months. No, I'm not wealthy and have plenty of reasons why I need the money for other things. But if 200 patriots join me in this same commitment, we will have the war chest we need to win this court battle. Again, naysayers---I'm not interested in you, nor those who say they can't afford it. I'm not interested in excuse-makers or those who spread malicious gossip about the money being used to "enrich" the men pushing this case forward. Those who have followed the work done by KeepAndBearArms.com and Citizens Of America (which was forced to shut down due to a fall-off in funding) have some idea of the commitment and hardships endured just to keep the lights on. I know and trust the people involved---worthy heirs of liberty all. I'm only interested in who will step forward now---today---and match my commitment. To do so, right now, click to this Silveira v. Lockyer Fund donation page link: https://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/donations David Codrea codrea4@adelphia.net	The Silveira case is still the absolutely wrong case for SCOTUS review. After consultation with the leading Second Amendment scholars across the country, there is near universal agreement on this. The basic argument of the few in support of taking Silveira to the SCOTUS is that Silveira's lawyers are stubbornly going to do it anyway, so we might as well support them. But we can support the issue ONLY IF AND WHEN they get cert granted by SCOTUS. Until then, it is still a reckless move which plays into the hands of those who would give us a 2A right with no teeth. FYI, the Nordyke v. Alameda case (challenging Alameda's gun show ban), which also directly raises the 2A issue, is still under consideration for en banc review in the Ninth Circuit. CRPA and NRA will almost certainly submit briefs if en banc review is granted. We would still need to changes a lot of minds, but the Silveira dissents may be influence the other Ninth Circuit judges to accept Nordyke en banc. Remember, the recent Nordyke 3 judge panel decision attacked Reinhardt's Silveira opinion and was cited in the Silveira en banc order dissents - which I must say were precipitated at least to some extent by the Nordyke panel opinion (wherein the judges said there WAS a 2A right but their hands were tied by Hickman). And let's recall that NRA and CRPA submitted an amicus brief on the Second Amendment issue in support of the Nordyke's to the three judge Ninth Circuit panel (so much for the fringe's "NRA does not want the issue heard at all" theory). There are now also TWO cases in DC court which are better suited than Silveira for SCOTUS review. They avoid the incorporation issue, and the DC handgun ban law being challenged is far more vulnerable than the AWCA. To reiterate a somewhat oversimplified reason why Silveira is a BAD case - look at what Judge Pregerson said in the Silveira en banc order: He believes in the 2A - BUT THE AWCA STILL IS CONSTITUTIONAL. To further understand how a court could do this, look at the Bailey case on Connecticut's AW law - Connecticut had a RKBA provision in its state constitution. That didn't stop the Conn. Supreme court from finding the law constitutional. A similar thing happened in Oregon. That state RKBA constitutional provision now just protects muskets. It all hinges on the test applied, and where the court draws the line of protection. "Strict scrutiny" is almost certainly NOT going to be the test. If an AW law is the first case to address the issue, we are probably going to wind up with a "reasonableness" test - something subject to political and subjective application. Establishing the parameters of that line of protection will mean YEARS of continued fighting in court and Congress even after 2A is confirmed as an individual right. It will be the "full employment act" for 2A lawyers (and unfortunately, many others), and will require tremendous efforts by pro self defense groups. Those who argue that NRA, etc., doesn't want a 2A case in SCOTUS because they would lose their reason for being (which, by the way, has always been percentage wise more about shooting, safety programs, training, etc, than politics) are legally utterly clueless. Silveira bites off more than the court (or the lawyers on the case) can chew. It will hurt us. CRPA, and now additional "friends of the court" will almost certainly be filing an amicus brief in SCOTUS to ask them NOT to hear that Silveira case. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions This is my PERSONAL opinion, not expressed on behalf of any client. C. D. Michel TRUTANICH-MICHEL, LLP Attorneys At Law Port of Los Angeles Office 407 North Harbor Blvd. San Pedro, California 90731 Phone: (310) 548-3703

Are we ready for a Supreme Court ruling?