Posted on 10/15/2004 9:27:31 AM PDT by tpaine
What Happens When … The Courts Don't Care About Your Rights?
By Richard W. Stevens
"We need to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court!"
With jaws set and fists clenched, so many gun owners want to charge forth into the courtrooms to win our right to keep and bear arms. Many Americans think that the truth is all you need to cause a court to declare our rights as the law of the land.
A group of decent California gun owners tested that idea. They challenged that state's ban on certain semi-automatic firearms, hoping the lower courts might strike down the law on Second Amendment grounds. The Second Amendment, after all, declares that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The California law doesn't merely infringe – it prohibits exercise of the right (for certain firearms).
Lower Court Losses
The Californian gun owners' case, named Silveira v. Lockyear, lost at the federal district court. They appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, and lost again, in a 2-1 split decision. The lone dissenter, Judge Alex Kozinski, blasted the majority's ruling and supported the gun owners' rights.
Determined to get their Second Amendment rights affirmed, the Californians petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court. As is common for Supreme Court cases, several organizations filed "friend of the court" ("amicus curiae") briefs. The petition and the various amicus briefs strongly urged the Court to grant a full hearing on the issues.
JPFO Petitions The Supreme Court
In an unusual move for our organization, JPFO prepared and filed an amicus brief in the Silveira case. (Excerpts of the text are available on-line at www.jpfo.org.) JPFO's brief, penned by three excellent volunteer lawyers, informed the Supreme Court about the direct connection between citizen-disarmament and genocide/mass murder.
JPFO's main argument, backed by incontrovertible facts, raised an issue that affects the lives of millions of people. There is no backing away from the truth that "gun control" policies prepare the way for criminals, whether individuals or governments, to devastate the defenseless people.
Black Robes Duck The Truth
The Supreme Court received the evidence from JPFO, but it didn't matter much. The horrors of genocide did not move the Court even to consider the issue. Without issuing any opinion, the Court this year denied the petition. The Silveira case was never to be heard. It was over. When a petition is denied by the Supreme Court, the minority of justices who favored granting the petition sometimes issues a statement to that effect. Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia, two reputedly "conservative" justices on the Court, did not even issue that statement for the Silveira petition. They could have noted the issues of extraordinary importance, e.g. the connection between a powerless citizenry and genocide; they said nothing.
JPFO's amicus brief delivered the information. The JPFO brief is available on-line, in full text, to lawyers who subscribe to the major legal research services, and to judges nationwide. The sobering facts and figures are there.
Yet the Supreme Court ignored the facts because the justices and their law clerks do not care about civilian defenselessness and genocide. They do not care that millions of innocents worldwide were disarmed, betrayed and slaughtered by their own governments in the 20th Century. They do not care that powerless minorities in the U.S.A. suffered terribly at the hands of the powerful. They live comfortably, oblivious to the fact that the September 11 disaster could only have taken place because all of the immediate victims were legally disarmed.
Little Hope In the Courts
So long as Americans remain ignorant of the real reasons why "gun control" schemes are evil and dangerous, we will never see the courts enforce the Second Amendment as written. The Supreme Court will never strike down any "gun control" laws until the educated elites and large segments of the people fear and detest "gun control." Until JPFO's message becomes common knowledge, the Supreme Court, the lower courts and the legislatures will continue to ignore the crucial issues and the truth. They will act like they don't know. They will not care.
Show Our Evidence to Your Jury
So it's up to us – and up to you. If the courts won't listen, then we must take the case against "gun control" to the juries of our peers, our fellow gun owners and fellow Americans. Every time we show the documentary video, Innocents Betrayed, or circulate copies of JPFO's Death by "Gun Control" book and other freedom resources, we are advocating to the "court" that really has the power: the American People.
Get the most powerful evidence available. Join JPFO, visit the website, order the materials, and help us take this fight to the hearts and minds of America. Call (800) 869-1884 to get membership and information, or click on www.jpfo.org. The defense of our rights must never rest
then you discover, as thousands each do each day, especially in civil and family matters, that the court has not the slightest interest in justice. followed by your discovery that rthere is nothing you can do about it.
it shall be a happy day when a law is passed that requires that one lawyer each month be chosen in each county in the nation, by a non-lawyer citizens review board, and that lawyer is taken out front of the courthouse and summarily hanged by the neck until dead.
jpfo ping
For Massachusetts residents, this is not a hypothetical question.
The Supreme Court CAN'T admit how much power government has assumed by using 'implied contracts'.
The gun owners in the original case need to file for:
deprivation of rights under color of law
conspiracy against rights
impairment of obligation of contract
free exercise of religion
There's probably more, but those immediately come to mind.
You can't ask the government anything, you have to tell it!
What methinks is needed is for HUNDREDS of similar (identical?) simple cases to be filed and pushed. If someone with legal skill & motivation produced a how-to guide that could be affordably pursued (a well-informed motivated individual need not use a lawyer or spend much money), many many people could start driving enough cases that differing rulings MUST be addressed by SCOTUS. If one or some case(s) falters, fails, refused, mis-ruled, or otherwise doesn't work, little is lost and in turn becomes fodder for appeals and resolution of varying rulings in numerous jurisdictions.
Build an "I Want My M4" case. Base it on:
- RKBA / 2nd Amend.
- The Militia Act of 1792 (all able-bodied citizens must arm themselves; most direct indication of RKBA intentions of Founding Fathers)
- US vs. Miller (arms are legal if have militia use)
- US v. Rock Island Armory (declared NFA tax on MGs null-and-void due to 922(o) MG prohibition)
- Sonzinsky v. United States (NFA could only work as a tax measure; prohibition prohibited)
Such a case could be succinctly worded, widely distributed, scenarios suggested, and efficiently filed. With enough upstanding pursuants, it would be unavoidable. Saturate the system; let it filter up to SCOTUS for a ruling. Repeat process with appropriate followup.
One case at a time, either expensively filed or riding on a scum, is a losing proposition. None of us can afford a $250,000 case ... but we can all afford $250 base filing fees. A thousand - or 100,000 - claimants demanding rights WILL be heard as never before.
Thanks - brilliant case. 922(o) is ready to fall - is anyone pushing?
I like your idea CT..
-- And thanks to all the rest of you for your reasoned replies..
Now lets see if we can get some 'reason' on the issue from some of FR's "States Rightist's", those who believe that CA/MASS/etc. have the Constitutional power to prohibit so called "assault weapons"..
Until we get a few more SCOTUS justices who are willing to enforce the Constitution, we should be very cautious about taking any Second Amendment case to SCOTUS. Remeber, Justice OConnor has gone over to the dark side.
As the article mentioned, Scalia & Thomas did NOT support hearing the case at hand. Are they on the 'dark side'? Your idea of 'waiting' is not working, in any case.
She was the deciding vote in gutting the First Amendment and supporting the blatantly unconstitutional Campaign Finance Reform Law. She's also bought into Justice Ginsberg's vile idea that SCOTUS should look to other nations' legal views in interpreting U.S. law, even when U.S. precedents, the constitution, and statutes are clear on the issue in question (death penalty cases).
Yep; -- OConnor is a classic case of a rogue Justice. -- Which is the best argument against your claim that we can control a future Court if we just wait.
If a Second Amendment case got to SCOTUS with its present makeup I deeply fear they'd gut the Second Amendment just as they have gutted the First Amendment.
That scenario could be a good thing, in that it assuredly would backfire into a full blown Constitutional crisis. The gun owners of America would NOT lose such a battle. -- Bet on it.
The NRA has done and is doing an excellent job of advancing Second Amendment causes by pushing for shall issue CCW wherever it doesn't exist. The Republicans are also moving on the legislative front by pruning back the D.C. gun ban. All of this is an essential salami strategy to erode gun control and finally establish a basis for taking a case to SCOTUS once we have a majority of justices who are willing to enforce the Constitution. Sometimes it pays to wait on one front and fight on another.
I've been hearing that "wait" fallacy since 1968, when the NRA folded the first time on gun control.
It didn't work then & it won't work now.
Both the Dalton and RIA cases are devestating to the gun grabbers, which is why the appelate court decisions were never appealed. Fedgov does not want for there to be any chance that the supreme Court might actually rule in favor of the historical sense of the 2nd Amendment. From the way I read things, (IANAL), it would appear that the 1934, 1968, and 1986 gun control acts have been declared null and void by two circuit courts. Does anyone else wonder why this hasn't been trumpted to the rooftops by the NRA?
Scalia and Thomas probably voted against granting certiorari precisely because they support the Second Amendment and feared the majority would disagree with them,
Bull. -- They could have issued a statement supporting the 2nd, without any such 'fear".
creating a devastating precedent where the Court actually adopted the so-called "collective right" theory.
Did you even read the article? -- It noted:
"-- Without issuing any opinion, the Court this year denied the petition. The Silveira case was never to be heard. It was over.
When a petition is denied by the Supreme Court, the minority of justices who favored granting the petition sometimes issues a statement to that effect. Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia, two reputedly "conservative" justices on the Court, did not even issue that statement for the Silveira petition. They could have noted the issues of extraordinary importance, e.g. the connection between a powerless citizenry and genocide; they said nothing."
We gun owners would be outraged by a "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment,
Exactly my point. This is probably why Scalia & Thomas said nothing. They are not prepared to back the 'Individual Right to Bear Arms, imo.
just as we were outraged by the CFR decision gutting the First Amendment.
Speak for yourself. I, and thousands of gun owners do not share your opinion that the 1st is "gutted".
However, the chance of getting a constitutional amendment to change either is between minuscule and nil. By taking a Second Amendment case to SCOTUS now without a more favorable makeup, we fundamentally jeopardize the Second Amendment.
How so? Do you really think the government can get away with outright violating our RKBA's?
The incremental approach advocated by the NRA has actually been working quite well.
In losing our rights, a bit at a time? -- You bet.
About two thirds of the states in the country now have shall issue CCW; ten years ago it was less than half of that.
'CCW' laws, unless framed like New Hampshire's, are in effect licensing regulations, -- permits that can be regulated away as easily as they are 'given'..
Being able to argue for these laws on the basis of the Second Amendment is one reason we were able to pass them. A current "collective right" interpretation by SCOTUS would seriously jeopardize our efforts to pass these laws. The bottom line is we need to reelect President Bush and enough Republican Senators to break the DemonRats' judicial filibuster. Then he needs to appoint solidly conservative lower court judges and SCOTUS justices who can be counted on to rule in favor of the Second Amendment.
Dream on. Our judicial system is totally infiltrated with closet socialists. We can't 'count' on ANY of them.
The time to take a Second Amendment case to SCOTUS will be when we have that makeup, not before. With some good fortune, it might come sooner than we think, like in the next two or three years. Until then, we need to hang on and keep chipping away.
As I said, I've heard that song for 40 years now. Get a new tune.
We are going to have a big turnover in the US Supreme Court in the next few years. The replacements will either be appointed by Kerry or by Bush and confirmed or rejected by the Senate- either a Conservative Republican Senate or a Senate of Extremist liberal democrats, extremist is as moderate as liberal politicians get.
Re-electing Bush and Cheney and a Conservative Congress is as essential to the survival of our Constitution and our Republic, as any endeavor we the citizens have ever been priviliged and duty bound to participate in.
I know. We all have good reason to be cynical. But at this time, Republicans are the only hope we have of gaining a USSC that doesn't legislate their agenda from the bench.
I agree on Thomas. If history allows truth to prevail, Thomas will one day be proclaimed the standard by which Justices are measured.
Most Americans are unwilling to do this, as they would prefer to be "couch potato patriots".
Isn't that what the 2nd amendment is all about
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.