Traitors To Step Aside
Michael Z. Williamson
October 21, 2003
Folks, let’s start with some facts:
Silveira vs. Lockyer
case is at the Supreme Court now. Done deal.
Silveira case is
either going to be ignored or heard by the justices.
FACT: A lot of work has been
done by a very competent attorney named
Roy Lucas, who has an
excellent track record at SCOTUS.
To that end, I’m puzzled what
the current legions of detractors are trying to accomplish. No amount of
complaining about it being “The wrong case at the wrong court” is going to stop
the ball—it’s rolling downhill as we speak.
No amount of backstabbing and
undermining is going to improve the case.
There’s a small, but vocal,
group of critics getting in a peeing contest as to who can make the worst claims
about the backers and attorneys involved. These people have been around
politics long enough to understand the concept of caucus—once a platform exists,
one puts disagreement aside and supports the party. Our party -- those who
support the 2nd Amendment -- is going to have a day in court. Done
In which case, I can only use
a harsh term about those pecking at the corpse before it’s even dead.
That term is “TRAITOR.”
Yes, it’s a harsh term. It’s
What in the hell are you
trying to accomplish, folks? There are three possibilities here:
1: SCOTUS refuses to hear
the case. It goes away, someone tries again. No actions on your part can
improve this scenario.
2: SCOTUS rules against us.
That seems to be the big fear here. “But what if we loooooooooose?” I hear
people whine. Fact is, most District and lower courts are of the opinion that
we don’t have a 2nd Amendment. Several of those judicial opinions
are why this case exists, right? If you step into the arena, there’s a risk of
losing. But if you refuse to fight, you have lost preemptively. And even among
those courts that recognize it, the 2nd Amendment is not considered a
civil right for purposes of civil law—one cannot sue anyone for “violating my
Second Amendment rights.”
This case hopes to address
that. We have good briefs, good clients, good attorneys and a plan. Give us
more competent amicus briefs if you want to help.
3: SCOTUS rules in our
favor. Do please assure me this is what you’d like to see! It would define
keeping and bearing arms as a right, permanently. From there, we have a basis
to HAMMER our opponents politically and socially as “bigoted extremists
attempting to undermine our civil rights.” And make no mistake, we will.
Now, complaints, aspersions,
second-guesses, death threats against our attorneys and ad hominem
attacks and pejoratives will not accomplish possibility #3. THAT is what we’re
here about, folks.
I’ve got friends supporting
this case who are Trotskyites, neo-Conservatives, Libertarians, gays,
Christians, Muslims, etc. If we define the 2nd Amendment as
only applying to “right-thinking people of the right political and racial
makeup,” we’ll not only be bigots, we’ll lose by our own divisiveness. Recall
your Franklin. “We must all hang together, or we most assuredly will all hang
Frankly, I’m puzzled. It
seems as if a certain cross-section of our community wants to say, “We Told You
So! Neener, Neener, Neener! Your suit failed!”
Not only childish, but it
would mean they’d be gloating along with Sarah Brady, Chucky Schumer, Dianne
Feinstein and other enemies of freedom.
Just whose side are these
people on? They aren’t on ours, and they aren’t staying quiet and working in
parallel on their own cases. Their only goal seems to be sabotage of the case
we do have. That is traitorous. That makes the Brady Bunch cackle with glee.
The case is at SCOTUS.
Support it, or step aside. But do everyone a favor, and keep your misgivings to