|
Silveira
Second Amendment Case Needs Immediate Financial Support,
and Here's Why
October
1, 2003
NEW:
Detailed Accounting of
Fundraising
KeepAndBearArms.com
� The latest development in the
Silveira v. Lockyer
Second Amendment lawsuit will require additional legal
work, and that will cost money we do not have. The
announcement of whether or not the Justices will hear the
case has also likely been put off until, at the earliest,
the first week of November. And much work must still be done
between now and then.
Because
the Supreme Court has ordered the State of California to file a Brief in
Opposition � California has to respond � Silveira
attorneys will have the opportunity to file a Reply Brief answering them, and then get the last word. The Reply is governed by
Supreme
Court Rule 15. It must be printed and filed ASAP after October 22.
Silveira's
legal allies
in D.C. can get a photocopy of the Opposition from the Court immediately after it is filed on or before
Oct. 22. The Justices always read the reply, and they frown upon failure to answer a
Brief in Opposition � so we need to respond to whatever
California's anti-Bill-of-Rights politicians put forth. The Rule allows 10 pages of argument and requires the same printing as with the petition for
certiorari. So along
with the money needed to pay to have this work done, we'll need some
money for printing, too. Please understand this:
�The fundraising by
KeepAndBearArms.com is essential to
Silveira v. Lockyer and has my backing 100%.�
�
Gary Gorski, Attorney for Plaintiffs,
Silveira v. Lockyer
This Case Will
Very Likely Be Heard by the Supreme Court
The book DECIDING
to DECIDE - Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme
Court, by H.W. Perry (Harvard University Press) is a detailed study of the factors affecting
whether or not certiorari is granted. We have almost
every factor pointing to
"certworthiness" on our side:
1) Six (6) amici
(amicus brief filers).
Emerson had zero
amicus briefs filed. Bean had zero until after
cert was granted � and only had two from our side even
then. (The pro-RKBA briefs in Bean were filed
more than two months after anti-gunners had already
filed an amicus brief.)
2) A clean conflict of
circuits (5th & 9th).
3) A bad
Circuit Court judge's ruling being challenged
(Reinhardt).
4) A Court they watch
and correct - the Ninth Circuit.
5) Six dissents in our
favor for a hearing (split in the 9th
Circuit).
6) A very important bunch of issues that need to be heard by the Supreme
Court.
7) Dissents by
prestigious judges.
Kozinski, Pregerson, Gould, and Kleinfeld � most are from Harvard and well known to the other
Justices.
You can see why
we are so optimistic that the Supreme Court will be
hearing Silveira v. Lockyer � a true Second
Amendment case (see certiorari
petition).
As to the requirement of a Brief in Opposition, Perry suggests that
"If at the
original conference there are only one or two votes to grant, there is probably no reason to call for a response. However, if any Justice calls for a response, or asks that a case be
relisted, it is done automatically...."
Any Justice
calling for a Response after a defendant has
waived the right to respond is a good sign toward cert
being granted. Our legal team estimates that we
already have the votes to get the case heard �
only four Justices' votes are required � and the Court wants a Brief from the State to make sure they are not missing anything.
The Silveira
legal team is working on a Supplemental Appendix on disk of about 800 pages of supporting material that is
available with a click. This will be provided to the
Justices shortly after certiorari is granted � to
make their lives easier as they study this important
matter before them.
The Silveira
legal team is working on
the Plaintiffs' brief to be filed after cert is granted.
Waiting around to find out "if" they will hear
it is improper strategy and would be foolish. The work is
being done. Will you please help us make sure it's done
well, right and on time? Do so here: Give
online | Give
by mail
Additional
Work Vital to the Case and to the Second Amendment's
Defense
The following articles are either completed or
substantially completed. Each was written by Roy Lucas
as an independent researcher whose brilliant work we funded before his untimely death in November of 2003 -- work that will be applied to the
Silveira Second Amendment battle, or the next one if
Silveira's cert petition is somehow denied:
Miller
Revisited, submitted to about 20 Law Review Journals
The
Forgotten Justice McReynolds, submitted to about 20
Law Review Journals. (McReynolds wrote the Miller
opinion. It's time thoroughly to review who he was, what
he stood for and what he did throughout his career. This
article is going to help get a thorough, sound review of
the oft-misinterpreted Miller case.)
From Patsone
& Miller to Silveira v. Lockyer, published by
December in a southern California accredited law school
journal.
The 14th
Amendment and the Right to Arms, submitted to about
20 Law Review Journals � two of the most prestigious
LRJ's in America are showing interest in publishing it.
Presser
Revisited is getting close to being complete and
will be submitted to numerous Law Review Journals. A
new, insightful look at Presser and its
foundational premises is long overdue.
Postal
Pistols, argues that the 1927 law banning the use of
the U.S. postal system to mail handguns is
unConstitutional. This one's still a work in progress
and will explore more virgin territory ripe for RKBA
analysis.
These articles
alone are so valuable to liberty. You can believe
that � and you will when you read them. More
importantly, the Justices will be impressed by them �
because they are being written by a legal genius.
The only reason those already completed aren't yet
published on this site right now is that we want to be
able to cite them in law review journals rather than
"on a gun rights website". It's a matter of
being taken seriously and having the greatest impact. So
please be patient, have some faith and support this vital
effort; these masterpieces are going to open eyes to new
and different ways of viewing our most basic rights and
the pressures coming together to force a true ruling on
the nature, purpose and intent of the Second Amendment.
NOTE: We have
released one of the many articles funded by the many
trusting backers of the Silveira lawsuit. If you
fancy your collection of RKBA books, your collection is
incomplete until you review the evidence Miller's attorney
could have filed with the Supreme Court in 1939 had he
been inclined to do so. Click
here to get info on how to get a signed copy.
Help Us Win a
Definitive Second Amendment Ruling!
Will you please
help us make sure all of this work is done well, right and
in time to be applied in a looming Supreme Court decision
on the Second Amendment? You do want us to WIN this case,
right? If not for yourself, then for the love of young
people who comprise the next and future generations,
please help us help make this case the success it can be:
Give
online:
https://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/donations/
Give
by mail:
http://KeepAndBearArms.com/silveira/mail.htm
NEW:
Detailed Accounting of
Fundraising
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/
Or
use the menu in the upper left side of this page to
navigate the Silveira v. Lockyer files.
|
