Gray Peterson
Member
I posted this on Packing.org, but I think this bears repeating....:
I am equally certain that Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter and Stevens are firmly Against the individual right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Nothing is for absolutely certain, especially when it comes to the Supreme Court. Earl Warren was supposed to be conservative, but turned out to be one of the most liberal SCOTUS Chief Justices ever.
The Silveira amicus brief was specifically tailored to both the liberal and conservative ends of the spectrum, pointing out not only the inherent extreme racism of the Cruikshank, Slaugtherhouse, and the Presser Cases, but also pointing out that the Miller court in 1939 violated the rights of Miller by hearing the case without legal representation, and in fact pointed out the strong possibility that the Miller court intentionally sabotaged his Miller's defense by changing dates on Miller's lawyer.
This is all discussed in the Amicus filed by Gorski, the lawyer for Silveira, and this research was done by LeRoy Lucas, who by no means is a conservative pro-gun lawyer and researcher. This stuff that was done to Miller's defense would enrage modern liberals because it violates the modern tenents of constitutional law: That no person may be denied legal representation in a criminal court case, which was done with Miller.
Remember what Anthony Kennedy said in the Lawrence v. Texas case stricking down the sodomy laws, and overruling the previous SCOTUS case on sodomy, Bowers v. Hardwick, where Kennedy said this:
Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding prece-dent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.
Taking things from an opposite perspective, Warren Burger, the Chief Justice who wrote the majority decision in Bowers, was a pretty well known liberal.
Don't you think that if someone like Kennedy were to write something that strong on overrule, that the liberal wing of the course, or at least 1 or 2 of them, will rule in favor of Silveira, or at least vote to grant cert, considering all of the issues of Miller not being represented at the SCOTUS in 1939.
This is a clear violation of constitutional rights, the SCOTUS later held, about 30 years later, that cases decided without representation by a lawyer is illegal and unconstitutional, and required both the states and the federal government to PROVIDE an attorney to represent a defendent's interest if they are unable to pay for or provide their own lawyer (to much consternation by conservatives). Liberals debasing a current 2nd amendment case on a case, being Miller, that was unconstitutionally decided, would strip all semblence of logic from the SCOTUS.
The Navegar case was DOA because it was a commerce clause case, the case might be moot in a year due to the sunset of the AWB, and if the court rules strongly in favor of Silveira on second amendment, which means the California Assault Weapons ban is stricken from the books, dont you think that it will send a message to Congress: "Don't repeal the sunset provision, the law is unconstitutional anyway". If they take Silveira, we wil have a ruling by the end of June of 2004, one way or another.
Additional thoughts:
Think about it folks. It's a little late in the game to say "Silveira shouldn't be our case on the second amendment". Amicus has already been filed. We'll find out next month if cert is granted.
Think of the payoff: If the SCOTUS were to strike down the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act, and it's amendments, on the basis that it violates the 2nd amendment rights of individuals to possess firearms for their own defense, it will likely mean that all of the assault weapons bans, both the ones passed at the state levels in the various people's republics, and federal Title XI of the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994, are toast.
Even if the court rules that the applicability of the ruling against the CA AWB is only applicable to the California jurisdiction, and each case must be decided individually in terms of jurisdiction, all of the other PR's and the USDOJ will likely lose in any lawsuit, because SCOTUS precident is binding on all circuits, INCLUDING the infamous 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
If we only get a marginal ruling, or a ruling that it doesn't protect an individual right (essentially a Reinhardt plus), then other options can be discussed. *goes tight lipped*
I urge all of you, especially those who criticize the Silveira case, to please read the Amicus brief filed by Gorski.
Silveira v. Lockyer Cert Petition (requires Adobe Reader)
and to donate, go here:
Silveira v. Lockyer Fund by KABA
Let's have a decision, one way or another. Waiting for a better court will not help us, and will likely hurt us, because Bush is no friend of the Second Amendment (he supports the federal AWB, along with pushing Patriot Act and other unconstitutional legislation).
I am equally certain that Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter and Stevens are firmly Against the individual right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Nothing is for absolutely certain, especially when it comes to the Supreme Court. Earl Warren was supposed to be conservative, but turned out to be one of the most liberal SCOTUS Chief Justices ever.
The Silveira amicus brief was specifically tailored to both the liberal and conservative ends of the spectrum, pointing out not only the inherent extreme racism of the Cruikshank, Slaugtherhouse, and the Presser Cases, but also pointing out that the Miller court in 1939 violated the rights of Miller by hearing the case without legal representation, and in fact pointed out the strong possibility that the Miller court intentionally sabotaged his Miller's defense by changing dates on Miller's lawyer.
This is all discussed in the Amicus filed by Gorski, the lawyer for Silveira, and this research was done by LeRoy Lucas, who by no means is a conservative pro-gun lawyer and researcher. This stuff that was done to Miller's defense would enrage modern liberals because it violates the modern tenents of constitutional law: That no person may be denied legal representation in a criminal court case, which was done with Miller.
Remember what Anthony Kennedy said in the Lawrence v. Texas case stricking down the sodomy laws, and overruling the previous SCOTUS case on sodomy, Bowers v. Hardwick, where Kennedy said this:
Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding prece-dent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.
Taking things from an opposite perspective, Warren Burger, the Chief Justice who wrote the majority decision in Bowers, was a pretty well known liberal.
Don't you think that if someone like Kennedy were to write something that strong on overrule, that the liberal wing of the course, or at least 1 or 2 of them, will rule in favor of Silveira, or at least vote to grant cert, considering all of the issues of Miller not being represented at the SCOTUS in 1939.
This is a clear violation of constitutional rights, the SCOTUS later held, about 30 years later, that cases decided without representation by a lawyer is illegal and unconstitutional, and required both the states and the federal government to PROVIDE an attorney to represent a defendent's interest if they are unable to pay for or provide their own lawyer (to much consternation by conservatives). Liberals debasing a current 2nd amendment case on a case, being Miller, that was unconstitutionally decided, would strip all semblence of logic from the SCOTUS.
The Navegar case was DOA because it was a commerce clause case, the case might be moot in a year due to the sunset of the AWB, and if the court rules strongly in favor of Silveira on second amendment, which means the California Assault Weapons ban is stricken from the books, dont you think that it will send a message to Congress: "Don't repeal the sunset provision, the law is unconstitutional anyway". If they take Silveira, we wil have a ruling by the end of June of 2004, one way or another.
Additional thoughts:
Think about it folks. It's a little late in the game to say "Silveira shouldn't be our case on the second amendment". Amicus has already been filed. We'll find out next month if cert is granted.
Think of the payoff: If the SCOTUS were to strike down the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act, and it's amendments, on the basis that it violates the 2nd amendment rights of individuals to possess firearms for their own defense, it will likely mean that all of the assault weapons bans, both the ones passed at the state levels in the various people's republics, and federal Title XI of the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994, are toast.
Even if the court rules that the applicability of the ruling against the CA AWB is only applicable to the California jurisdiction, and each case must be decided individually in terms of jurisdiction, all of the other PR's and the USDOJ will likely lose in any lawsuit, because SCOTUS precident is binding on all circuits, INCLUDING the infamous 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
If we only get a marginal ruling, or a ruling that it doesn't protect an individual right (essentially a Reinhardt plus), then other options can be discussed. *goes tight lipped*
I urge all of you, especially those who criticize the Silveira case, to please read the Amicus brief filed by Gorski.
Silveira v. Lockyer Cert Petition (requires Adobe Reader)
and to donate, go here:
Silveira v. Lockyer Fund by KABA
Let's have a decision, one way or another. Waiting for a better court will not help us, and will likely hurt us, because Bush is no friend of the Second Amendment (he supports the federal AWB, along with pushing Patriot Act and other unconstitutional legislation).
.