|
U.S.
Supreme Court "Requests" Response from State of
California in Silveira v. Lockyer Lawsuit
September
25, 2003
(Updated
Sept. 29 with link to
actual order)
KeepAndBearArms.com
-- Another interesting turn of events has occurred in the Silveira
v. Lockyer Second Amendment lawsuit. Our legal
experts advise that this new development suggests
that the Supreme Court will probably be granting certiorari
in this case -- that they will most likely be hearing
the case for which KeepAndBearArms.com is the fundraiser.
On September 22,
the Court issued a "Request for Response" to the
Petition for a Supreme Court
hearing of this true Second Amendment case -- a
"request" that was sent to California attorney
general Bill Lockyer and copied to lead Silveira
attorney Gary Gorski. (See U.S. Supreme Court docket
for Silveira v. Lockyer.) Why is this intriguing?
Why does it suggest that the Justices are seriously
considering hearing this case?
Let's quickly
review the timeline of events surrounding the appeal of
the Silveira case to the Supreme Court:
| July
3, 2003: |
Petition
for writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August
7, 2003) |
| July
30 - Aug 7: |
Amicus Briefs filed by Pink Pistols, Women Against Gun Control, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Second Amendment Sisters, Inc., National Rifle Association and Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws, in that order. |
| Aug 7, 2003: |
Waiver of right of respondent Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of California to respond filed. |
| Aug 20 2003: |
Petition DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2003. |
| Sep 22, 2003: |
Response Requested
[from California, who already waived the
right to respond]. (Due October 22, 2003) |
California
waived their right to respond to the Petition, in
essence saying "we'll let this play out without
saying anything." One week before the Justices were
to have their "Conference" on the case, they
told California to respond anyway. They are asking
California's attorney general, "Hey, do you agree
with this opinion by your judge
Reinhardt, or not? What is your position on the arguments
in this Certiorari
Petition. We're taking this seriously. So should you.
Take a position. You've got one month to do so."
The Justices
could simply have denied the Silveira petition,
like they did in Emerson and Bean. But they
didn't. By all appearances, they are thinking, seriously, about granting certiorari.
Disclaimer: Of
course it's not a done deal until the Supreme Court says
they'll hear the case. Another possibility could be that
they want to give California a chance to convince them not
to hear it. Or that they want to give an appearance of
giving the case serious consideration even though they
don't plan to hear it. But why go to that much trouble
when they don't have to?
The Silveira
legal team believes, as they have for quite some time,
that this case will be granted a hearing -- and that the
case will be won on at least the two fundamental
questions presented. If they are correct, history is about
to be made.
Use the menu
system in the upper left margin of this page to navigate
the Silveira-related pages on this website. The
case is a true, pure Second Amendment case that requires
answers to two fundamental questions about the Second
Amendment:
1) Is the
Second Amendment a
bar against infringements by the
States?
2) Does the
Second Amendment confer an individual right?
We already
know the truth. The answer to both questions is an
unequivocal YES. But these
questions need to be answered squarely by the Supreme
Court (rather than in
mere dicta). Unlike the other Second Amendment cases
petitioned to the Supreme Court by "gun rights
leaders" since 1939, there's no wiggle room to avoid
answering those questions; they must be answered if
this case is heard. Liberty is on the line. Does the rule
of law still apply, or has the federal government nullified the
Bill of Rights? We may soon find out. And it's about time.
|
