NRA Lying About Silveira Case AGAIN

Josey1

NRA lying about Silveira case AGAIN

Press Release - Is the NRA Serious
from Gary Gorski, attorney for Silveira Plaintiffs
August 26, 2003
[filed here late due to site being down]
[Additional analysis by Angel Shamaya below press release]

The NRA issued the following press release:

NRA Files Brief with the Supreme Court in Silveira v. Lockyer
The National Rifle Association (NRA) has filed an amicus curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Silveira v. Lockyer, arguing that the Second Amendment is indeed an individual right, and a right that is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist said, "Every freedom guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is extended to the individual citizen. The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right and it should not be subject to any discrimination. To address the dilemma of violent crime, lawmakers ought to place the full burden of justice on the criminal element. Sadly, society is more content to trade our valued freedoms as an alternative. We hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will stop this erosion of our independence."

Cox praised the hard work by Chuck Michel, an attorney who has worked on this case in California. "Chuck has worked tirelessly to safeguard Second Amendment rights in California for many years. He is an exceptional individual and a sharp attorney. We are fortunate to have him working on our behalf in California," concluded Cox.

Posted: 8/13/2003 3:45:26 PM
[Click here to see it on NRAILA.org or here for a saved a screenshot.]
This is clearly deceptive --- Chuck Michel has worked tirelessly in attempting to impede the case of Silveira v. Lockyer from its inception, up until the NRA filed it's amicus brief. He has tried to dissuade Silveira's attorney, Gary W. Gorski, from filing the action, and prosecuting the appeal. On appeal in the Ninth Circuit, he filed an amicus brief in opposition to Silveira, arguing that the Plaintiffs/Appellants lacked standing. So, it begs the question: What has Chuck Michel done for the case in California?

Gary W. Gorski
Attorney at Law
http://www.gwgorski.com
SEPS EXERTUS, SEMPER FIDELIS, FRATER INFINITAS
("Often Tested, Always Faithful, Brothers Forever")
916.965.6800
916.965.6801 fax

---

Additional Responses from KeepAndBearArms.com Founder/Executive Director, Angel Shamaya

NRA Chief Lobbyist Chris Cox's press release praising CRPA/NRA attorney Chuck Michel as "an attorney who has worked on this case in California" is overtly dishonest. The insinuation is that Chuck Michel has been helping the Silveira case. Nothing could be further from the truth.

While NRA's amicus brief supporting Silveira is welcome and excellently prepared, the organization has not given one dime toward the Silveira legal battle, of which KeepAndBearArms.com is the sole fundraiser. (They may have paid their law firm to write their brief -- a brief written and filed after the case had already been appealed to the Supreme Court.) Despite this, we have two documented reports that NRA's phone solicitors have raised money under the guise that they've been helping the case -- from months before they prepared their brief. Regardless, for Cox to imply that Chuck Michel has helped this case in any way is a gross insult to the many people who have worked on the case.

Here are some facts Mr. Cox omitted from his press release:

1) NRA/CRPA attorney Chuck Michel tried to KILL the Silveira case. Brian Puckett documented that fact for all to see. Go see for yourself: NRA Lawyer Undermining ALL Our Rights

2) NRA/CRPA Chuck Michel publicly threatened that if Mr. Gorski appealed the case to the Supreme Court, CRPA would "most likely file a brief asking the Supreme Court not to hear the dangerous case." In that press release of May 13, 2003, Michel said, among other things:

A) "CRPA opposes Supreme Court review of the Silveira decision."

"It is absolutely the wrong case for Supreme Court review."

3) Chuck Michel actually called Gary Gorski a "Judas" for fighting the Silveira lawsuit. Here's a direct quote from the guy NRA's Chris Cox is praising for being "an attorney who has worked on this case in California":

From: CDMichel@aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 9:33 AM
To: gwgorski@pacbell.net; CDMichel@aol.com
Cc: PROTELL@aol.com; cconte@nrahq.org
Subject: Re: CRPA Brief

"...you are setting yourself up to be remembered in history as the Judas that betrayed the 2A civil rights movement."

C. D. Michel
TRUTANICH - MICHEL, LLP
A t t o r n e y s a t L a w
Port of Los Angeles Office
407 North Harbor Blvd.
San Pedro, CA 90731
Phone:(310) 548-3703
Fax: (310) 548-4813
Internet: www.t-mlawyers.com

QUESTIONS FOR CHRIS COX

1) What were Mr. Michel's objectives while he was doing this "work"?

2) Was Mr. Michel trying to HELP the case succeed by announcing that it was "wrong" and "dangerous"?

3) Was Mr. Michel trying to empower the lead counsel by calling him a "Judas that betrayed the 2A civil rights movement"?

4) Does NRA intend to raise money under the false premise that your organization has done, is doing or will be doing anything other than paying a law firm to write and file an amicus brief in this case? There is much work to be done -- why won't NRA help finance this effort?

---

NOTE: WE STILL REQUIRE FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SILVEIRA LEGAL BATTLE AHEAD!

If you have not yet donated to the Silveira v. Lockyer lawsuit fund, will you please do so now?

Give online:

https://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/donations/

Give by mail:

http://KeepAndBearArms.com/silveira/mail.htm

For more information on the case, its development, its success thus far, and details on what your financial support will help fund, go here:

http://KeepAndBearArms.com/Silveira/

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/silveira/nrajoke.asp

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>

Josey1

Who's the NRA?

THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 235, August 24, 2003
The Dominoes Fell

---

by Jim Duensing
Jim@JimDuensing.com

Special to TLE

Who's the NRA?

George Bush, whose office the NRA was to be working out of, is in favor of more gun control than Bill Clinton. Emperor Bush favors the "reauthorization" of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

Under the guise of reauthorizing the 1994 Clinton gun ban, H.R. 2038 'The Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003' proposes additional restrictions on American firearm freedom including; the banning of the future manufacture and importation of ALL semi-automatic shotguns, banning those weapons made to conform to the 1994 ban, increasing those weapons banned by name from 19 to 65, and giving the Attorney General the discretion to ban any other mechanism which he or she determines "is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes." "A firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."

Further, the bill bans the private transfer of "assault weapons".

The moderate sycophantic leadership of the NRA, a closet caucus of the Republican Party, is to blame that this infringement on the right to keep and bear arms is expected to pass.

The NRA supported candidate Bush - they campaigned for him -- they spent lots of their members' money in key districts. The NRA is responsible for Bush winning Michigan, and arguably other states, by converting union Democrats to Bush's camp to protect their gun rights. There were many people who voted for Bush simply because the 1994 ban will sunset on September 13th, 2004.

Now, the group which was supposed to be "working out of the White House" is turning a blind eye to the Neo Assault Weapons Ban. Go to the NRA's website. Look for information on it. You'll find it, but you'll have to wade through pro-Republican propaganda and relatively minor firearms legislation news.

I understand the thinking. Historically, the Republican Party has trampled on the Second Amendment less than the Democratic Party has. So, supporting the Republicans makes superficial sense. But, for a one issue political action group like the NRA to continue to support a party which does not support its agenda is foolish at best.

Instead of supporting a party and a President which is at odds with the NRA's political positions, the NRA should find a candidate which vehemently supports individual private possession of militia grade weaponry at home and abroad. Once found, the NRA should throw its mighty clout behind that candidate before its ability to speak for American gun owners is destroyed by a lack of support from private firearms owners - a group whose numbers are sure to dwindle if this bill becomes a law.

If an alternative candidate in the Democratic Party cannot be found,-and yes there are staunchly pro-gun democrats-the NRA should put their support behind a candidate in one of the "third parties". The Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party both support the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Only two outcomes now seem likely. First, H.R. 2038 will continue to engender little resistance from the NRA. Second, the NRA will mount an offensive against 2038 and the assault weapons ban will be reauthorized in its 1994 configuration. The NRA will claim victory and send out solicitation letters to Life Members like myself informing us how lucky we are that the NRA kept those radical Democratic alternatives from becoming law.

It is time for the NRA to put up or be put out of its misery. If it does not defeat this bill in all its forms it has outlived its usefulness and needs to be abandoned by its membership in favor of a principled non-partisan group.

article link: http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe235-20030824-04.html

Author Bio: Jim is a columnist and radio talk show host. You can find an archive of his articles and a link to a webcast of his radio show at http://www.JimDuensing.com/

http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/firingline/who's.htm

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>

Josey1

Saving the 2nd
Amendment:
A National Effort
by Jennifer Freeman


When politicians are sworn into office, they are sworn to uphold the United Stated Constitution. Many politicians do not uphold their oath, in these modern times, however. And, as a general populous, our expectations of politicians have been reduced to hopes. We cast our vote at the ballot box and keep our fingers crossed, hoping that we made the right choice. Many of us don't even try that hard, preferring to abstain from the electoral process altogether.

How can we, as citizens, expect our politicians to behave in a manner worthy of the U.S. Constitution if we do not even hold ourselves to such standards?

Don't we have an obligation to vote for the candidate most likely to uphold the Constitution, regardless of whether or not we think s/he can win? Do we not also have an obligation to speak up on issues like the Second Amendment, regardless of whether or not we think we can change minds? Are we not obligated to support our fellow brothers and sisters, our fellow patriots, who have worked so hard to make a positive change for this country by supporting the Second Amendment? Case in point: Silveira vs. Lockyer and the variety of pro-Second Amendment legislation that is being put forth for us.

Gun owners have been begging for years for someone to take the Second Amendment to the U.S. Supreme Court and resolve this issue once and for all. Well, the case has been presented and it may very well be accepted and heard by SCOTUS. But it will take more than just being right to win this case. It will take money to prepare and present the case. Our fellow patriots are doing all of the work and taking all of the risks. All we have to do is write a check.

A few of our legislators have drafted federal bills that could save our Second Amendment rights at a national level. Again, our fellow patriots in the legislature are doing all of the hard work and taking all of the risks. All we have to do is support and promote such legislation.

In both cases we have everything to lose by not acting and everything to gain if we win.

It was John Jacob Astor who coined the phrase, "If you want something done right, do it yourself." Putting the Second Amendment first must be a national priority at the household level. If you are not willing to do something to support your rights, why should your neighbor do anything either? If all of us were making the phone calls and putting the money where are liberties are, our Second Amendment rights would not be in such jeopardy. It is obvious, therefore, that many people are seeking comfort in the idea that someone else will send the postcard and someone else will write the check. But it isn't happening.

This results in yet another excuse. That being the apathetic, "Nothing I do will make a difference. The Constitution is dead. Our rights are already gone."

Baloney! The U.S. Constitution is alive and worth fighting for! The Second Amendment can be restored, but only if each of us works at an individual level. And that means sacrifice.

Let's face it. You work hard all week. You're a very busy person. You pay more than your fair share of taxes. And when the week is done, you want to do something for you. Go to dinner, see a movie, and enjoy some time with those close to you. No one would argue that you deserve to enjoy the fruits of your labor during what little free time you have.

The work week does not end at 5:00 on Friday, however. The work does not end until we have made our contribution to save our rights. Saving our rights, your rights, is something that you do for yourself and for your loved ones. It is also a way to repay a debt that has been laid in blood by our founding fathers and generations after them. It is our way of upholding the U.S. Constitution. And we have a responsibility to behave in a manner worthy of our liberties.
http://www.libertybelles.org/articles/savingthe2ndamendment.htm



"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>

Josey1

GOA Criticizes The Administration's Delay In Arming Pilots
For Immediate Release
August 25, 2003
Contact: Ellie McDaniel
703-321-8585

(Springfield, VA) -- Gun Owners of America congratulates the several pilot organizations that will be holding press conferences at various airports around the country on Tuesday, August 26 to "light a fire" under the Bush administration. Pilots around the nation will be urging the Bush administration tomorrow to accelerate the rate at which it is certifying pilots to carry firearms.

"Incredibly, the Bush administration seems to have taken a page out of the Gore playbook on this issue," said GOA Communications Director Erich Pratt. "At every point in the fight to arm pilots, Bush officials have dragged their feet, continually working against common-sense safety.

"It's been almost two years since 9-11, and yet our nation has fewer than 150 pilots who can defend their crews and passengers from terrorists," Pratt said. "If al-Qaeda makes good on its threat to hijack another plane, our only defense will be to send an F-16 fighter jet into the sky to blow it up.

"It's outrageous that we are relying on this option as our main defense against terrorist hijackers," Pratt said.

The pilot groups have been particularly critical of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) which they believe is using whatever means necessary to slow down the program and prevent pilots from being armed as mandated by law.

The Allied Pilots Association says that the TSA has made the program so onerous for pilots with ludicrous levels of background and psychological testing that it is obvious they are trying to intentionally discourage participation. The administration had even fought the legislation to arm pilots when it was being discussed in the Congress.

Pilots will be holding press conferences at 11 am at the following airports: Miami International Airport; Reagan National Airport; Los Angeles International Airport; O'Hare International Airport; Logan International Airport; and, Dallas-Ft. Worth Airport.

A coalition of three pilots' organizations notes that with only one facility conducting training at an average of 50 pilots per week, a maximum of 2,600 pilots will be trained in an entire year. The Armed Pilots' Security Alliance estimates 40,000 of the nation's 120,000 pilots would seek admission into the armed pilots program. At the current rate, it would take 15 years to train these pilots.

-- GOA --

Erich Pratt is Director of Communications for Gun Owners of America, a national gun lobby with over 300,000 members located at 8001 Forbes Place, Springfield, VA 22151.

Either Erich Pratt or another GOA spokesman is available for press interviews.


http://www.gunowners.org/pr0310.htm

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>

Highball

So the stinking leadership continues their deception..and raking in the bucks from the ignorant and gullible.What else is new ?

Keep funding your own throat-cutting..suckers !!!

God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??

n/a

quote:Originally posted by Josey1
Who's the NRA?

THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 235, August 24, 2003
The Dominoes Fell

---

by Jim Duensing
Jim@JimDuensing.com

Special to TLE

Who's the NRA?

George Bush, whose office the NRA was to be working out of, is in favor of more gun control than Bill Clinton. Emperor Bush favors the "reauthorization" of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

Under the guise of reauthorizing the 1994 Clinton gun ban, H.R. 2038 'The Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003' proposes additional restrictions on American firearm freedom including; the banning of the future manufacture and importation of ALL semi-automatic shotguns, banning those weapons made to conform to the 1994 ban, increasing those weapons banned by name from 19 to 65, and giving the Attorney General the discretion to ban any other mechanism which he or she determines "is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes." "A firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."

Further, the bill bans the private transfer of "assault weapons".

The moderate sycophantic leadership of the NRA, a closet caucus of the Republican Party, is to blame that this infringement on the right to keep and bear arms is expected to pass.

The NRA supported candidate Bush - they campaigned for him -- they spent lots of their members' money in key districts. The NRA is responsible for Bush winning Michigan, and arguably other states, by converting union Democrats to Bush's camp to protect their gun rights. There were many people who voted for Bush simply because the 1994 ban will sunset on September 13th, 2004.

Now, the group which was supposed to be "working out of the White House" is turning a blind eye to the Neo Assault Weapons Ban. Go to the NRA's website. Look for information on it. You'll find it, but you'll have to wade through pro-Republican propaganda and relatively minor firearms legislation news.

I understand the thinking. Historically, the Republican Party has trampled on the Second Amendment less than the Democratic Party has. So, supporting the Republicans makes superficial sense. But, for a one issue political action group like the NRA to continue to support a party which does not support its agenda is foolish at best.

Instead of supporting a party and a President which is at odds with the NRA's political positions, the NRA should find a candidate which vehemently supports individual private possession of militia grade weaponry at home and abroad. Once found, the NRA should throw its mighty clout behind that candidate before its ability to speak for American gun owners is destroyed by a lack of support from private firearms owners - a group whose numbers are sure to dwindle if this bill becomes a law.

If an alternative candidate in the Democratic Party cannot be found,-and yes there are staunchly pro-gun democrats-the NRA should put their support behind a candidate in one of the "third parties". The Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party both support the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Only two outcomes now seem likely. First, H.R. 2038 will continue to engender little resistance from the NRA. Second, the NRA will mount an offensive against 2038 and the assault weapons ban will be reauthorized in its 1994 configuration. The NRA will claim victory and send out solicitation letters to Life Members like myself informing us how lucky we are that the NRA kept those radical Democratic alternatives from becoming law.

It is time for the NRA to put up or be put out of its misery. If it does not defeat this bill in all its forms it has outlived its usefulness and needs to be abandoned by its membership in favor of a principled non-partisan group.

article link: http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe235-20030824-04.html

Author Bio: Jim is a columnist and radio talk show host. You can find an archive of his articles and a link to a webcast of his radio show at http://www.JimDuensing.com/

http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/firingline/who's.htm

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>



QUOTE:Now, the group which was supposed to be "working out of the White House" is turning a blind eye to the Neo Assault Weapons Ban. Go to the NRA's website. Look for information on it. You'll find it, but you'll have to wade through pro-Republican propaganda and relatively minor firearms legislation news.

This is not entirely true and IMO completely misleading. I have receive quite a bit of correspondence from the NRA about notifying representatives, sending out post cards, emails, etc. from the NRA regarding this and other pending bills. I honestly believe that it is counter productive to attack other organizations that are fighting to protect the same things we are fighting for. I could be mistaken here, but I believe the NRA spends more money fighting for our 2nd Amendment rights than any other organization out there. If it had not been for the NRA, Al Gore would be our current president, and we would be FAR worse off than we are now. Just my .02

Eric

Highball

You are new here,ECC..and its obvious you haven't taken the time to educate yourself about the nra.
They have been working FOR gun control for 70 years..easing it up your rump a little at a time..carefully judging how much you will stand for THIS year.
Perhaps some one interested enough to educate you and all the newbies here might go back and call up Josey1's excellent post on the subject..or you might just take the time to look over some alternate site's dealing with pro-gun stuff..you will find that people REALLY interested in stopping gun control have very little to do with NRA anymore..reconizing that ' compromise' is a real dirty word,when it comes to a RIGHT.

God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??

n/a

quote:Originally posted by Highball
You are new here,ECC..and its obvious you haven't taken the time to educate yourself about the nra.
They have been working FOR gun control for 70 years..easing it up your rump a little at a time..carefully judging how much you will stand for THIS year.
Perhaps some one interested enough to educate you and all the newbies here might go back and call up Josey1's excellent post on the subject..or you might just take the time to look over some alternate site's dealing with pro-gun stuff..you will find that people REALLY interested in stopping gun control have very little to do with NRA anymore..reconizing that ' compromise' is a real dirty word,when it comes to a RIGHT.

God,Guts,& Guns<BR>Have we lost all 3 ??<BR>


I would agree with your final remarks, but I pose you with this question: Can you argue with the fact that the NRA probably won the election for President Bush? One very good thing that the NRA does is to promote, and help elect, some of the most pro-gun legislators out there. I too, do not like compromise...and there are some things that I do not agree with regarding the NRA, but from my experience they do help make a difference. Maybe I do need some more education on the issue. Does anyone care to divulge some more info on this matter??? I would be interested in hearing a response to the questions I posed here too. Thanks![:)]

Eric

Highball

Yup..the nra most likely got bush elected.Might I assume you think that is a GOOD thing ?
You also also agree with with the 'Patriot' Act..( Orwellionspeak,that)?..Pre-emptive strikes on foreign nations absent ANY information of danger to America,ignoring countries that HAVE threatened the U.S..A president on record as stating...'send me a new assult weapons ban bill..I will sign it'...

While you talk about this guy being better then that guy..ever read the Constitution ?

Carefully watch this forum..and you will begin to see the NRA supporting ANTI-gun politicians..when there are pro-gunners in the race.Happens all across America.

God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??

n/a

quote:Originally posted by Highball
Yup..the nra most likely got bush elected.Might I assume you think that is a GOOD thing ?
You also also agree with with the 'Patriot' Act..( Orwellionspeak,that)?..Pre-emptive strikes on foreign nations absent ANY information of danger to America,ignoring countries that HAVE threatened the U.S..A president on record as stating...'send me a new assult weapons ban bill..I will sign it'...

While you talk about this guy being better then that guy..ever read the Constitution ?

Carefully watch this forum..and you will begin to see the NRA supporting ANTI-gun politicians..when there are pro-gunners in the race.Happens all across America.

God,Guts,& Guns<BR>Have we lost all 3 ??<BR>


No I do not like the Patriot Act...and Yes, I do believe electing President Bush was a good thing...and that goes for more issues than gun rights. The alternative would have been a devastating blow! As for the "assault weapons ban", I believe President Bush would have listened to the people on this issue...it's up to us to let our voice be heard.

As for the NRA supporting anti-gun legislators, there are only two real candidates in any race for a public seat. Are you referring to a potential 3rd candidate that probably did not stand a chance in winning the election? I generally vote for the candidate that most reflects my personal views, and has the best chance of winning any given election..."the lesser of two evils".

Thanks for the input, and I will heed your advise in watching the NRA a little closer...especially since I contribute to them regularly

Eric

longhunter

Eric, May I jump in? It seems that you r at that place bud....the place where we suddenly find out just how academic our votes mau be.It is disheartning,but as you know we r saying that we vote for Hopefully the lesser of two evils,not for the one that would be best.What are our options,I am still working on that one...The lesser of the evil onlyy works well IF the winner didn't lie to us.And we all know how the Ameriacn poloticians don't lie don't we? Just my 2,I am sorry that I do not have the solution....L.H.