Breaking News 2A SCOTUS CHALLENGE!!!

[Shamaya]

Okay, Jim.

Quotes below are from your message above:

Gorski made minor mistakes in his brief (such as leading off with a Hitler quote that is a known "urban legend") and then to top it off, Gary got dragged into a giant public pissing with Chuck Michel, which has helped nobody.

Minor mistakes in a brief to the 9th Circuit are irrelevant when it comes time to petition S.Ct. for a hearing, Jim. They'll be reading the certiorari petition and supporting documents. Chuck wouldn't know that as he has no S.Ct. experience -- and he thinks you have to be arrested in order to be allowed to fight for your rights in court.

The, as you call it, "giant public pissing contest" between Michel and Gorski could actually play in our favor. In fact, if NRA stays out of Silveira for the duration, it'd have a much better chance of being heard and won at S.Ct. Furthermore, the fact that NRA's attorney tried to kill the case is also quite helpful -- "everybody knows" NRA is a political machine. Their lack of involvement and known opposition is a blessing.

Most of what's here:

http://keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/scotus.asp

...is pretty good. But sadly, it now also contains an outright lie written by Brian Puckett:

--------------------
The reasons for this are many. They include the effect of anti-gun propaganda generated by the government and communications media, and the failure of increasingly socialized, urbanized, history-illiterate citizens to understand the importance of an armed citizenry in maintaining freedom. Also included is the fact that the largest gun-rights organization, the NRA, has no courts-related strategy for regaining our lost rights, or even maintaining the status quo. Their plan, and the plan of the gun community in general, is the tactical non-plan of simply reacting to the assaults of the anti-gun forces.
--------------------

It's been revealed as a lie when the NRA backed the lawsuit against the DC general gun ban by Cato institute legal scholars.

First, be real careful when you call someone a liar, Jim -- if you are mistaken, you start having to deliver apologies.

As stated on that page, that article was written and published in 1999. It was only edited once after publication, very recently, to correct grammatical errors and some very slight wording. I know, because I did that editing, and I did the original publishing.

Perhaps you'd enlighten us as to exactly what "NRA backed the lawsuit against the DC general gun ban by CATO institute" actually means. I encourage you to take great care before answering.

Stated another way, exactly how did NRA "back" the CATO lawsuit, Jim? They didn't write the suit, their attorneys are not co-counsel, and I'm told they didn't even know when it was going to be filed. Do you mean they gave CATO money, long after the lawsuit was on its way? Please do clarify.

The NRA wants to fight in DC because:

* Better courts, and a faster path to the USSC;

* It's a general ban on even HOME DEFENSE, which most people would see as "way too much". (It's also a ban on street defense and more and it's all being fought in this one case.)

Please validate your statement that a DC-filed suit is "a faster path to the USSC". And please elaborate on both why you think the DC court system is "better" to bring a 2A lawsuit and why the courts are "better", as well.

Anyways. Given the NRA's current support for another offensive gameplan, I would ask that Angel edit the Silveira site.

It sounds as if you believe Brian Puckett should have known NRA would "back" (to be defined and corroborated by you, if possible) a CATO lawsuit when he wrote that article in 1999. It also sounds like NRA is taking more credit for the CATO suit than is authentic. That wouldn't surprise me, since their telemarketers have claimed to be supporting Silveira.

I support both the Silveira effort and the Cato/NRA plan in DC.

That's a smarter position to take than the one NRA's attorney took. Good for you.

Eagerly awaiting your reply,

 

[Jim March]

We agree that the mistakes are functionally irrelevant. But remember that the NRA always tries to look like the 800lbs gorilla that never loses. Make screwups in the initial pleading, and they'll get the idea that hooking up with you is risky. Pissing up a storm about that is silly.

I missed that Brian Puckett wrote that in '99. I admit, that changes one thing in that back then, NRA wasn't *talking about* what their gameplan was.

BUT it was still rather presumptuous of Brian to announce that "they had no gameplan". I'll grant that he probably didn't *think* he was lying but if they did have a plan, it'd be a dumb thing to say, no? After years of NRA bashing on Brian's part, you think they'd let HIM in on anything?

There's a major figure in all this y'all around factoring in: Don Kates. Kates may be retired from practice, but he knew about pretty much every single law review article coming down the pike in our favor. And there's been a bunch, and not just from "pro-gunners" - ever read some of Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar's stuff? Kates (and Stephen Halbrook) have been tracking the scholarship, consulting on many of the key pieces.

The NRA "plan" has been to get solid scholarship published first, then go to court. They've been playing for the very long term.

As to the exact links to the DC suit, I'll have a chance to score details Monday so that'll have to wait.

 

[Shamaya]

Impressive.

Jim,

There are several statements you made in your previous post -- the one where you called someone a liar -- that aren't true. I requested validation of those claims, not small talk on other issues.

 

[Jim March]

The only statements you could be talking about were:

1) "A DC case can go to the USSC faster." I am under the impression that the DC courts form their own small "circuit" outside of the main "circuits", and it goes by some special name. Being smaller, appeals happen faster. Is that incorrect?

Here's a story on the DC Cato/NRA case:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/11/21/71030.shtml - note the reference to a "DC Court of Appeals". That's what I thought - they're outside the "circuit system".

2) I said that the NRA is involved in the DC suit. I read that, but don't have all the details and don't want to go into that until I do. I try not to "shoot from the hip" TOO often.

3) I said that saying "the NRA has no gameplan" is a lie. If stated today, it would be. If stated in 1999, it may not have been a deliberate lie but it WAS rash and arrogant - Brian Puckett's *opinion* was that they had no gameplan, he had no basis for stating that as cold fact which is exactly how he phrased it.

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

In other news, the last time the DC gun hit a court was in 1986, the Sandidge case:

http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/cases/sandidge.html

It's a classic "Miller Mutilation" case, twisting the living crap outta US vs. Miller (trying to read it as "the USSC says all gun bans are cool"). The 5th Circuit in Emerson said something entirely different about Miller and it's obvious that's why this area (speaking legally and geographically) was targeted.

 

[Wildalaska]

Can you find any RKBA heavyweight attorney with those kinds of credentials? If so, show me just one.

Stephan Halbrook, Esq.


By the way Mr Smaya Ive read your website and it seems you are seeking donations to COA...tell me what is the nature of the agreement you/they have with Mr. Lucas? What is his hourly rate? What percentage of donations are being paid to him and by whom? Any administrative fees? Who gets them? Are you being paid any funds via donations? How about your corportation?

What is the efficient use of funs you talk about?

Is Mr Lucas a part of your corporation? You are a "for profit" corporation are you not?

If Lucas is such a beleiver why isnt he contributing his time, in all or in part?


WildquestionsAlaska

 

[Jim March]

Halbrook regularly works closely with the NRA.

 

[Oleg Volk]

Glad to see additional questions on financial and affiliation issues. Mr.Shamaya, full disclosure of relevant info will be a big help. All: please go easy on negative labels -- we got to work this together and decide the issue on its merits, not have incidental personality clashes decide the issues for us. As we all know, we have limited funds and they ought to be spent well -- it is up to KABA to convince us that the cause is worth supporting.

PS: I, personally, am convinced -- but I welcome the debate anyhow to verify my facts and impressions.

 

[Shamaya]

Which is it, Jim?

Quotes are yours, Jim:

1) "A DC case can go to the USSC faster." I am under the impression that the DC courts form their own small "circuit" outside of the main "circuits", and it goes by some special name. Being smaller, appeals happen faster. Is that incorrect?

Washington, D.C.'s court system is the most highly politicized in the nation. It's the conflagration point of politics -- the American epicenter of political manipulation. You said a case moves through faster in that political swamp and that they are "better courts" -- while calling someone a liar. I again request that you substantiate your claims (not with questions, and preferably with something besides your "impression").

2) I said that the NRA is involved in the DC suit. I read that, but don't have all the details and don't want to go into that until I do. I try not to "shoot from the hip" TOO often.

You based NRA's alleged "backing" of the CATO lawsuit as justification for calling someone a liar for what he said three years earlier. Failure to substantiate your claim suggests that you already shot from the hip and called someone a liar as one of your shots. You submited a link on the CATO lawsuit that says nothing of NRA backing. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/11/21/71030.shtml

If you cannot substantiate your claim, you owe Mr. Puckett an apology. In fact, even if you could, his opinion, shared by many others, is still a valid opinion, so you owe him one anyway.

3) I said that saying "the NRA has no gameplan" is a lie. If stated today, it would be. If stated in 1999, it may not have been a deliberate lie but it WAS rash and arrogant - Brian Puckett's *opinion* was that they had no gameplan, he had no basis for stating that as cold fact which is exactly how he phrased it.

First, what he actually wrote in 1999 was that they had "no courts-related strategy for regaining our lost rights." And given the fact that NRA has never taken a Second Amendment lawsuit to the Supreme Court, I'd say it was a fair expression of his opinion, and one that many people share. You overstated calling him a liar, and you still haven't told us what "NRA backed" means in regards to the CATO lawsuit.

You also said the public disagreements between Gorski and Michel have "helped nobody." I say they're quite helpful on many fronts. Does having an opinion different than yours also make me a liar?

You also opined that using a debunked quote in the original complaint was somehow a big deal, when it isn't a big deal at all. In fact, the Judge who wrote the opinion cited Bellesiles twice and has since amended those citations (one deleted, one cited to someone else).

In other news, the last time the DC gun hit a court was in 1986, the Sandidge case:

http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/cases/sandidge.html

It's a classic "Miller Mutilation" case, twisting the living crap outta US vs. Miller (trying to read it as "the USSC says all gun bans are cool"). The 5th Circuit in Emerson said something entirely different about Miller and it's obvious that's why this area (speaking legally and geographically) was targeted.

If you haven't read Roy Lucas' Miller Revisited, when you finally do, you'll understand why David T. Hardy says, "Roy Lucas' work for (and not merely on) the Second Amendment is stunning, absolutely stunning. His investigation of the Supreme Court's Miller decision (based on original research in the National Archives) puts that ruling in an entirely new -- and unflattering -- light."

The annihilation of Miller is a key to victory. Lucas' take on Miller opens several new doorways. If Silveira is heard, Miller is going down hard, bringing every single case that relied on Miller into question. If Silveira is not heard, that work will be applied to future cases, per our agreement with Mr. Lucas.

Speaking of which, Mr. Wildalaska, your answers are forthcoming.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Perhaps some can clarify this for me, but the opinion that says that Presser and Cruikshank aren't relevant is the Silveira opinion and the author of that is Judge Reinhardt? Sounds like he wants to see it in front of the Supreme Court worse than Gorski does.

Good strategy on the anti part though to jettison the part of your argument that aligns you with the KKK and a blatantly racist ruling.

 

[Wildalaska]

Speaking of which, Mr. Wildalaska, your answers are forthcoming.

When? Takes you over 24 hours to construct an answer? This is about funds you are soliciting...and btw why isnt the info posted on your web site.

 

[Oleg Volk]

Wildalaska,

The answers might not be forthcoming instantly because it takes time to type them up. Weird as it may sound, Mr. Shamaya has a life outside of THR and quite a few peojects he's furthering simultaneously. The man does more pro-RKBA work than just about anyone I know.

The reputations of KABA and COA are enough for me to put my trust into this project. For others, additional information will be forthcoming. I really do hope that no one will question KABA's dedication to our common cause, whether or not they decide to help actively. They've done enough already to merit some appreciation from us. Don't know if you are aware of how many sites and organizations were either created by KABA or strongly supported by them at the inception.

 

[Wildalaska]

I really do hope that no one will question KABA's dedication to our common cause, whether or not they decide to help actively.

I am withholding my comments on that until I see the answers to the previous questions and some others I will have..I would note however, that the NRA has done more to help the casue of firearms freedom thatn any other organization, yet they are questioned here regularly, and critisized in the harshest language. Is Mr. Shamaya, who by the way exhibits a belligerent attitude in some of his posts, such an icon that he cant be questioned?

By the way, the NRA, love it or hate it, is a not for profit corporation.....

The answers might not be forthcoming instantly because it takes time to type them up.

Seems to me that important info like that would be already in a format ready for submission...

 

[jimpeel]

Spoke to Gorski last week

Gorski called me and we spoke for about ten minutes. I had sent him a letter setting out the circular argument of the "... right of the states to arm militias cannot be infringed by the federal government†interpretation. He found it interesting and had not heretofore considered it. Here is that circular argument:

Based on Article I, Section 10, para 3.

"No State shall, without the consent of Congress, ... keep troops, or Ships of War in time of peace, ..."

ie: The States have to have the permission from Congress to do what is otherwise prohibited to them; but the Second Amendment prevents the Congress from disarming the States who need their permission to be so equipped in the first place. (start over from beginning of sentence and repeat to infinity)

 

[Blackhawk]

Excellent, Jim!

 

[Shamaya]

Joint Response from Angel Shamaya of KABA and Brian Puckett of COA

Neither COA nor KeepAndBearArms.com normally conduct business on discussion forums. It is inefficient, reaches a narrow audience, and is potentially never-ending. However, Angel Shamaya weighed in previously in this venue, so we are simultaneously addressing these questions regarding fundraising, relationships and the like.

Citizens Of America and KeepAndBearArms.com are smaller, newer organizations, and questions regarding use of donations are legitimate, so we will respond.

COA’s primary purpose is to educate the GENERAL PUBLIC (as opposed to people on our email lists, or readers of gun publications) about the dangers of gun control and the lies and hypocrisy of anti-gun fanatics. A secondary mission is to fund gun rights lawsuits that may soon end the harassment, fines, imprisonment, and killing of Americans who exercise their right to own, carry, and use guns. COA’s goal is not to make money but to restore, as soon as possible, before things get any worse, the free exercise of our rights.

KeepAndBearArms.com is a C corporation – with the benefits and limitations that implies. KABA is also going to be establishing a 501(c)(3) organization to facilitate various projects more suited to an entity taxed as such, to be announced when we get around to that project. KABA is basically a news and information source. In just three years it has become the premier gun rights internet news site, outranking the carefully controlled NRA sites and all other website of gun rights organizations. KeepAndBearArms.com is used by gun rights activists all over the world to get straight, uncensored RKBA-related news, to locate source material, to read information and opinion articles available no-where else. This is an incredible achievement, due entirely to those who have given time and money to KABA.

If you believe that we must finally ATTACK THE GUN RIGHTS PROBLEM AT THE ROOTS (general public perception of guns, getting fundamental 2nd Amendment issues settled in the courts); and if you believe in a no-compromise position on the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment; and if you agree that gun rights organizations should be calling for the REPEAL of unconstitutional gun control “lawsâ€, and NOT calling for them to be ENFORCED as the current NRA managers are doing, then support us. We strive to use every dime donated as efficiently and effectively as possible, and we believe we have done an excellent job thus far. As a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt public benefit corporation, COA provides financial disclosure statements to the federal and California governments each year. California will be providing direct scans of the documents we submit every year.

It certainly would be a good thing, however, if the current management of the NRA were questioned as closely, since they take in at least $150,000,000 a year. One must wonder why it is that the largest gun rights organization in the world has never pushed a Second Amendment lawsuit through the Supreme Court.

With respect to the Silveira v. Lockyer lawsuit: it was COA and KABA that facilitated cooperation between Gary Gorski, attorney for the plaintiffs in this potentially huge, historic lawsuit, and Roy Lucas. Gary Gorski has himself deemed Mr. Lucas’ work absolutely irreplaceable to this lawsuit. This work includes producing a model petition to the Supreme Court to grant certiorari for Silveira v. Lockyer. His other work will have powerful effects on both this AND future 2nd Amendment court battles. Mr. Lucas’ work is not just “worth†supporting – it is essential to our goal of seeing the 2nd Amendment again respected and enforced.

Mr. Lucas began his Second Amendment legal work out of dedication to the cause. He is not an officer, employee, or member of our organizations, nor have we hired him as an attorney in any capacity. With your help he will receive a continuing grant over the next several months, allowing him to maintain his normal modest lifestyle while focusing exclusively on the projects vital to the Silveira v. Lockyer case as outlined on the website page linked above. The final level of support is unknown at this time since it depends upon donations from gun owners and like-minded individuals.

Whatever Mr. Lucas receives from gun owners via our fundraising efforts, it cannot repay him for just the work he has already done on our behalf. When one considers the arrests, the court battles, the loss of life savings, the terrible costs to families, and even the lives lost that will continue to occur, the cost in dollars seems insignificant. We must put an end to this ugly chapter in American history. We ask, again, that you help us do it.

Thus far, every dollar coming in through donations since we started this project has gone to, or will soon be spent on, supporting this work crucial to the Silveira v. Lockyer lawsuit. Of course, both COA and KABA have fixed overhead costs. Without paying the bills we could not perform our particular missions. In the future, only if it becomes necessary, we will retain from overall donations only the minimal amount needed to continue our normal, low-overhead operations -- which includes more fundraising for this project.

Angel Shamaya, Brian Puckett, and COA co-founder David Codrea, have given thousands of hours of free time to our organizations and to the cause of freedom, which we do not want, nor do we expect, to be paid for. But we committed ourselves to doing this work as long as we receive sufficient support from the public.

This year, with your help, both COA and KeepAndBearArms.com will be able to expand our efforts. We’re glad to play a role in a potentially historic Second Amendment lawsuit, and we feel honored to be able to share in the work of a brilliant, experienced attorney who sees the gun rights battle from legal perspectives heretofore unexplored. KABA in particular has several behind-the-scenes projects in various stages of development, each of which will be helpful and productive, whether Silveira is heard by the Supreme Court or not.

The bottom line is: If you like what we are doing, support us. If you disapprove, then don’t. Always feel free to offer us suggestions as to how we might improve what we’re doing. As for us, we will continue to advance our no-compromise gun rights missions – which we hope will become less and less necessary in the near future.

Best regards,

Angel Shamaya, Director, KeepAndBearArms.com
Brian Puckett, President, Citizens Of America

 

[Oleg Volk]

Personally, I consider KABA amd COA to be the most cost-effective organizations out there. I've given money to the NRA, to JPFO, and to KABA and only the last entity produced visible results. I like and appreciate the work done by the other two, but the returns on each additional dollar or hour of time spent favor KABA and COA (in my opinion). Take this as Oleg Volk's view, not as THR official position.

 

[Wildalaska]

And NONE of the questions have been answered...

I for one will not give a single dime to any organization or cause that fails or refuses to disclose where the money goes...and when they do make such disclosures I do not give any money to any organization that uses the $$ to pay for "overhead" instead of their goals..this btw includes most not for profit orgs except for such charitable luminaries as DU, RMEF...

The rest is up to you, the individual members, to decide how your political $$ are spent...

The bottom line is: If you like what we are doing, support us. If you disapprove, then don’t. Always feel free to offer us suggestions as to how we might improve what we’re doing.

I suggest you answer the questions previously answered, so that no inference can be drawn about people lining their own pockets with other peoples money...and if you dont want to do it here, at least do it on your web site.

 

[Oleg Volk]

charitable luminaries as DU

DU = Democratic Underground or some other org?

 

[mjustice]

Oleg:

I don't think you see WildAlaska's point. (And hopefully Mr. Alaska can correct me if I am wrong )

For each dollar that is submitted via COA/KABA, how much is directly spent on compensating Mr. Lucas on his work?

How much work is being produced for the amount spent (what's his rate)?

How much is it costing COA/KABA to compensate Mr. Lucas? Depositing checks, writing checks to Mr. Lucas, reconciling funds, etc.?

I (like many others) are often skeptical when donating money blindly for causes, since recent "studies" have shown that some organizations raise a lot of money through third parties, and then see only a mere fraction of the proceeds.

This in combination with organizations that soak-up 80+% of their receipts in administration and expenses, can leave donors with a bad taste in their mouth.

Now, while I am *not* accusing Angel Shamaya (or anyone else) of doing anything wrong, I don't think it's unfair to ask for semi-detailed explaination of how the donations are used.

MJ

 

[Wildalaska]

DU = Democratic Underground or some other org?

I was referring to Ducks Unlimited. who else???

 

[Wildalaska]

How much work is being produced for the amount spent (what's his rate)?

Keep in mind also that the great bulk of research on any constituional case is invariably done by law students, whose time is billed to the client at as much as 10 times their rate of pay by the employing lawyer.

 

[Blackhawk]

Keep in mind also that the great bulk of research on any constituional case is invariably done by law students, whose time is billed to the client at as much as 10 times their rate of pay by the employing lawyer.

I don't think that's generally accurate.

Most basic research is done by paralegals or interns, and they're billed out much higher than they're paid, but so what? Paper copies are also billed at much above cost, but again, so what?

Legal research is a mining or prospecting type task. A LOT of dirt has to be sifted to isolate the important stuff, which is then given to the experienced lawyers to sort through.

Talked to an honest doctor once. He was complaining about the MediCare billing hoops he had to jump through. He said "I got into medicine to make money, not to fill out forms." Lawyers are the same way. They practice law to make money.

If you'll let some bozo doctor who can't command big fees mess around with you, maybe you'll be happy with some dull lawyer who won't have a chance against the talented ones representing you. You get what you pay for, and take a look at the contracts the sports stars and other entertainers are enjoying. You want the best, you'll have to be able and willing to pay for it.

Altruism is great, but it doesn't draw much talent....

If hiring a gunfighter, get the best there is, not just the best you can afford. There is no second place award.

 

[Wildalaska]

Altruism is great, but it doesn't draw much talent....

Got to disagree there some of the best layers I know arent in it for the money..

Unfortunately, most of them dedicate their time to leftist causes..seems like altruism stops short of our type of politics....

 

[publius]

WildAlaska,

Suppose you donated money to this cause, and they go on to win in the best of all possible ways before the Supreme Court. You later find out that our cyberfriend Angel had gold plated plumbing in his opulent penthouse headquarters, and Mr. Lucas was grossly overpaid by any reasonable standard. Are you sorry you did it?

 

[Blackhawk]

Got to disagree there some of the best layers I know arent in it for the money..

I know a lot of ones like that. They are, however, already VERY "comfortable" so they can afford to do pro bono things without upsetting their lifestyles.

Philanthropists are usually rich people with guilty consciences.