Silveira

Silveira v Lockyer is a second-amendment case originating in the 9th Circuit (mostly California). The plaintiffs sued in an attempt to overturn California's assault weapons ban, which is stronger than the national ban. The case produced a "collective rights" decision from the 9th Circuit en banc hearing, with some strong dissenting opinions for an individual rights position.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. Tragically, however, one of the lawyers advising on the case died while the Court considered whether to review the 9th Circuit's decision. Shortly after his death the Supreme Court denied cert in the case.

The Silveira case was heavily supported by KeepAndBearArms.com. I have an archive of the court documents.

U.S. Supreme Court "Requests" Response

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?

I agree with the Keep and Bear Arms folks on this. If you do too, you might consider donating to the Silveira v Lockyer fund. If the Supreme Court takes this case -- and their actions here are suggestive that they are at least considering it -- then we need to be able to present a powerful individual-rights argument.

Silveira v. Lockyer Petition for Writ of Certiorari Denied

KeepAndBearArms.com is reporting that the Supreme Court has denied cert to Silveira v Lockyer. This is unfortunate, as it allows the court to duck a ruling on the 2nd Amendment under circumstances that would have been fairly positive. However, there is a silver lining: the death of Roy Lucas, who was contributing legal advice and experience to the Supreme Court appeal process, would have placed the Silveira lawyers at a disadvantage had the issue been heard. (It is not inconceivable that this influenced the decision to deny cert).

The court has cautioned in the past that the denial of cert does not necessarily reflect on the merits of the case. Nonetheless, with cert for both US v Emerson and Silveira v Lockyer denied, the current court seems reluctant to approach the 2nd Amendment. This should surprise no one; this reluctance has characterized courts ever since US v Miller.

The question we must begin to ask is this: if the Supreme Court will not protect our rights under the Constitution, who will?

Reflections Upon the U.S. Supreme Court's Rejection of Silveira

This is a very long, very interesting article about the Silveira decision.

<-- Prev Displaying results 0 - 3 of 3 Next -->

Read this group via RSS or Atom.

Enter your email address to receive email updates for new entries in this group: