Keep and Bear Arms Home Page
This article was printed from
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit

This news item was printed from Keep And Bear Arms.
For more 2nd Amendment Information visit Articles at:


Print This Page
Print This Page
U.S. 9th Circuit Court Abandons Dishonest Anti-gun "Professor" by Angel Shamaya

9th Circuit Court Ditches Anti-gun "History" Professor

by Angel Shamaya

January 28, 2003 -- When the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled (incorrectly) in the Silveira v. Lockyer Second Amendment case, they opined that "it is this collective rights model which provides the best interpretation of the Second Amendment."

In doing so, they cited debunked Emory University "history" professor Michael Bellesiles as justification for their historically unsound ruling.

When California attorney Gary Gorski, representing Silveira plaintiffs, challenged their ruling, he addressed the fact that historical revisionist Bellesiles was cited by the 9th Circuit court. In his petition for a full en banc hearing (all judges on the court, as opposed to the three oath-breakers who issued the ruling), Mr. Gorski said:

"In addition to a flawed legal analysis, the Panel erroneously relied upon the work of Dr. Michael Bellesiles, the disgraced Emory University historian and author of Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture. (See Panel Decision which cites Bellesiles’ on pages 7 and 44) Bellesiles and his Arming America has been thoroughly discredited by historians and law school professors. In fact, had the Panel performed the most perfunctory research on Bellesiles’ work, the Panel would have quite easily determined that his work is simply not credible or trustworthy."

A press release by attorney Gorski on Monday notified us that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had just amended their ruling -- to exclude citations from Bellesiles "before it has even ruled upon whether the petition for rehearing en banc will be granted."

By cutting the Bellesiles citation, are Judge Reinhardt and his buddies trying to convince the rest of the court that their absurd decision is still valid?

What we do know for sure is that the anti-gun fake -- professor Michael Bellesiles -- just got slapped in the face again. Last we heard, he was considering taking a teaching position in "Great" Britain -- where his anti-gun fanaticism is accepted and where violent thugs have no fear of disarmed subjects. Hopefully, someone has alerted Mr. Bellesiles that even the most liberal and overturned U.S. circuit court won't stand beside him. That in itself is rich and satisfying.

Here is a link to the amended ruling submitted by Judge Reinhardt:

Amended (and absurd) Silveira ruling

Here is the amended text extracted from that ruling:


The majority opinion filed Dec. 5, 2002,is hereby amended as follows:

1 At Slip Op. at 7, footnote 1, replace “See Michael A. Bellesiles, Gun Control: A Historical Overview, 28 CRIME & JUST. 137, 174-76 (2001) (discussing the enactment of the National Firearms Act of 1934, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236 (1934) (current version codified as 26 U.S.C. §§ 5801- 72)), as a reaction to the use of machine guns by mobsters and the depiction of such violence in films such as Scarface).” with “See EARL R. KRUSCHKE, GUN CONTROL: A REFERENCE HANDBOOK 84, 170 (1995) (discussing the enactment of the National Firearms Act of 1934, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236 (1934) (current version codified as 26 U.S.C. §§ 5801-72), as a reaction to the use of machine guns by mobsters and “organized crime elements”).”

2. At Slip Op. at 44, footnote 37, delete “(quoted in Michael A. Bellesiles, The Second Amendment in Action, 76 CHI.- KENT L. REV. 61, 65 (2000))” 1118 SILVEIRA v. LOCKYER

[Emphasis added, with pleasure.]

Again, to read the latest in a long line of backhands across the face of Bellesiles, go here:

Silveira attorney Gorski offered the following statement about the fact that these liberal judges amended their ruling:

"Needless to say, this must have caused some serious concerns among the Three Judge Panel to amend their original opinion (which is a legal way of admitting that there was a serious and substantial flaw in the original opinion) before an order for rehearing is even granted." [emphasis added]

REMINDER: According to Silveira attorney Gorski, NRA has reportedly been raising money out of Fairfax, Virginia, falsely saying they are helping the Silveira case when one of their attorneys (who also works for CRPA) has been undermining the case with some truly anti-freedom maneuvers.

The full 9th circuit court may refuse to review the 3-judge panel's Silveira ruling. Even if they do, Gorski intends to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Related Reading:

CRPA/NRA Lawyer Undermining ALL Our Rights
Disturbing Events Surround 2nd Amendment Case

by Brian Puckett

Attorney Claims NRA Raising Money on His Second Amendment Case
--Press Release